On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:08:14PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Joe Lawrence wrote: > > > On 02/01/2018 08:49 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > > > > Well, one more thing. I think there is a problem with shadow variables. > > > Similar to callbacks situation. Shadow variables cannot be destroyed the > > > way it is shown in our samples. Cumulative patches want to preserve > > > everything as much as possible. If I'm right, it should be mentioned in > > > the documentation. > > > > Are you talking about using klp_shadow_free_all() call in a module_exit > > routine? Yeah, I think in this case, that responsibility would be > > passed to the newly loaded cumulative patch, right? > > Yes, but we haven't got an option not to call it here (as with callbacks, > where we can omit callbacks completely with atomic replace patches). A > live patch author must be aware of this and use shadow variables > appropriately. So maybe we should recommend that shadow variables generally be freed from a post-unpatch callback. -- 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
