On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 02:01:37PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > Do I understand it correctly that we could not patch functions that > pass arguments on the stack with this implementation? If yes, how hard > would be to get it working, please? At least, it would be great to > catch this problem and handle it with grace. Otherwise, it might > be hard to debug. No, those functions only require special attention. I needed _any_ location to store the caller's TOC; and the stack is thread-safe and recursion-safe. The current caller's frame is already full so I had to create a new one. A patch function could e.g. grab that TOC value in a prologue and then pop that stack frame. Or it could add those 32 bytes to the assumed arguments' stack offsets. > > > Where shall we put this warning? > > Sadly, we do not have any Documentation/livepatch/ yet/. > I still hope that we could handle it somehow in the code. I really think some documentation would be good, a live patch howto for a start... Torsten -- 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
