On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:16:22AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Tue, 17 May 2016, Jessica Yu wrote: > > > What about tasks sleeping on affected functions in uninterruptible sleep > > (possibly indefinitely)? Since all signals are ignored, we wouldn't be > > able to patch those tasks in this way, right? Would that be an > > unsupported case? > > I don't think there is any better way out of this situation than > documenting that the convergence of patching could in such cases could > take quite a lot of time (well, we can pro-actively try to detect this > situation before the patching actually start, and warn about the possible > consequences). > > But let's face it, this should be pretty uncommon, because (a) it's not > realistic for the wait times to be really indefinite (b) the task is > likely to be in TASK_KILLABLE rather than just plain TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. Yeah, I think this situation -- a task sleeping on an affected function in uninterruptible state for a long period of time -- would be exceedingly rare and not something we need to worry about for now. -- 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
