On Mon, 15 Nov 2021, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 08:01:13AM -0500, Joe Lawrence wrote: > > > This reminded me... one of the things I have on my todo list for a long > > > time is to add an option for a live patch creator to specify functions > > > which are not contained in the live patch but their presence on stacks > > > should be checked for. It could save some space in the final live patch > > > when one would add functions (callers) just because the consistency > > > requires it. > > > > > > > Yea, I've used this technique once (adding a nop to a function so > > kpatch-build would detect and include in klp_funcs[]) to make a set of > > changes safer with respect to the consistency model. Making it simpler > > to for the livepatch author to say, "I'm not changing foo(), but I don't > > want it doing anything while patching a task" sounds reasonable. > > > > > I took as a convenience feature with a low priority and forgot about it. > > > The problem above changes it. So should we take the opportunity and > > > implement both in one step? I wanted to include a list of functions in > > > on a patch level (klp_patch structure) and klp_check_stack() would just > > > have more to check. > > > > > > > As far as I read the original problem, I think it would solve for that, > > too, so I would say go for it. > > Sounds good to me. > > Miroslav, do I understand correctly that you're volunteering to make > this change? ;-) Yes, you do. I am not superfast peterz, so it will take some time, but I'll be happy to do it :). Miroslav
