On 04/13/15 at 10:37P, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Sun 2015-04-12 21:15:53, Minfei Huang wrote: > > In order to restrict the patch, we can verify the provided function > > address and name match. Now we have can only verify the vmlinux function > > name and address. > > > > Add a new function to verify extra module function name and address. The > > patch would not be patched, if the function name and address are not > > matched. > > old_addr could be predefined only for vmlinux. It does not make sense > to define it for modules because they are loaded dynamically, each > time on a different addresses. It means that it does not make sense > to verify addresses from modules. They always need to be detected. > Please correct me if there is something wrong for below comment. As commented in the doc that function address is optional, it is more confortable during patching the patch, if function name and address are provided. For now we only use function name to detect the module function. It is more accurate to detect the function using function name and address. Maybe the function address being optional to be added is more accepted. Also what the patches's purpose is to support the situation that function name is larger than 128. I think the patches make sense, because we can not disallow the extra module to be patch, which function name may be larger than 128. Thanks Minfei > Best Regards, > Petr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
