On 04/14/15 at 06:27pm, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Tue 2015-04-14 23:55:36, Minfei Huang wrote: > > On 04/14/15 at 10:11P, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:45:49PM +0800, Minfei Huang wrote: > > > > On 04/14/15 at 12:32P, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:29:50PM +0800, Minfei Huang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > For end user, they may know litter about restriction of kallsyms and > > > > > > livepatch. How can they know the restriction that function name is > > > > > > limited to 127? > > > > > > > > > > As I mentioned above, I think kallsyms.c should fail the build if it > > > > > encounters a symbol longer than KSYM_NAME_LEN. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont think it is a good idea to handle this case like that. The > > > > function name is only for human recognization. Why the compiler fails > > > > to build it? > > > > > > Well, the function name isn't only for human recognition. kpatch-build > > > generates patch modules automatically. It assumes that the compiled > > > function name matches the kallsyms name. And I'd guess that a lot of > > > other code (both in-kernel and user space tools) make the same > > > assumption. > > > > > > Not to mention that most humans would also make the same assumption... > > > > Yes. The assumption is correct for most case. > > > > It is significance for livepatch to support extra module, because in my > > opinion kernel is more stable than the third module. > > > > So it is more important, if the livepatch can patch all sorts of patch. > > For dynamic function name, I think it is simple to avoid it. > > Do you have some really existing module with such a crazy long > function names or is this debate pure theoretical, please? > No, I do not have such running module which function name is exceed to 127. Again, we can not predict what end user do to name the function name. I think the overlength function name is valid for linux kernel, if the module can be installed. > Also have you tested your patch and tried to apply livepatch > for some really exiting module, please? I ask because it won't The patched livepatch works well for my testing module which has the overlength name function. Thanks Minfei > be trivial to create such a patch. Also the patch would work > only for the one running system. > > Best Regards, > Petr > > > Usually, we will use ominity to handle a bunch of machines. So it is > > simple, if we use script to get the function address and build the patch. > > > > Josh, is there any chance to accept my patches? It may be important > > somewhile that system can not restart without schedule to reload the > > fixed-module. > > > > Thanks > > Minfei > > > > > > > > -- > > > Josh > > -- > > 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 > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- 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
