On Mon, 8 May 2017, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 8 May 2017 14:47:29 -0500 > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Although you should have: > > > > > > if (WARN_ONCE(!rcu_is_watching, > > > "Livepatch ...")) > > > return; > > > > > > or something to not cause any damage. > > > > My understanding is that returning would be more dangerous than > > continuing here. > > > > By continuing to run, there's only a small chance that it will get stale > > data, which would break the consistency model by executing an old > > version of the function and possibly crashing the system. > > > > On the other hand, returning would unconditionally break the consistency > > model by *always* executing an old version of the function. So that > > greatly increases the risk of a crash. > > I was being oversimplified by saying 'return', perhaps go into a > critical mode that can try again, or perhaps even back out the patch. > As in a transaction style. Yes, this will need to be thought through to > know how to get out. My comment wasn't meant to be simple. Well, live patching is in fact transactional. To some extent. If we fail during ftrace registration we abort the action gracefully. After the registration it gets more interesting because the whole system is "asynchronously" migrated to a final patched state. Even during this stage we can reverse the process (klp_reverse_transition()), but it was not easy to get it right... ... and to implement or start this logic from the handler sends shivers down my spine. We still can try. Thanks, Miroslav -- 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
