On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote: > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019, Joe Lawrence wrote: > > > On 9/2/19 12:13 PM, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > >> I can easily foresee more problems like those in the future. Going > > >> forward we have to always keep track of which special sections are > > >> needed for which architectures. Those special sections can change over > > >> time, or can simply be overlooked for a given architecture. It's > > >> fragile. > > > > > > Indeed. It bothers me a lot. Even x86 "port" is not feature complete in > > > this regard (jump labels, alternatives,...) and who knows what lurks in > > > the corners of the other architectures we support. > > > > > > So it is in itself reason enough to do something about late module > > > patching. > > > > > > > Hi Miroslav, > > > > I was tinkering with the "blue-sky" ideas that I mentioned to Josh the other > > day. > > > I dunno if you had a chance to look at what removing that code looks > > like, but I can continue to flesh out that idea if it looks interesting: > > Unfortunately no and I don't think I'll come up with something useful > before LPC, so anything is really welcome. > > > > > https://github.com/joe-lawrence/linux/tree/blue-sky I like this a lot. > > A full demo would require packaging up replacement .ko's with a livepatch, as > > well as "blacklisting" those deprecated .kos, etc. But that's all I had time > > to cook up last week before our holiday weekend here. > > Frankly, I'm not sure about this approach. I'm kind of torn. The current > solution is far from ideal, but I'm not excited about the other options > either. It seems like the choice is basically between "general but > technically complicated fragile solution with nontrivial maintenance > burden", or "something safer and maybe cleaner, but limiting for > users/distros". Of course it depends on whether the limitation is even > real and how big it is. Unfortunately we cannot quantify it much and that > is probably why our opinions (in the email thread) differ. How would this option be "limiting for users/distros"? If the packaging part of the solution is done correctly then I don't see how it would be limiting. -- Josh
