On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 03:30:22PM +0800, zhang warden wrote: > > On Sep 4, 2024, at 15:14, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If there are multiple people applying patches independently from each > > other (to the same function even!), you are playing with fire, as there > > could easily be implicit dependencies and conflicts between the patches. > > > > > Yep, I agree with you. This is not a good practice. > > But we can work further, livepatch can tell which function is now running. This feature can do more than that. > > Afterall, users alway want to know if their newly patched function successfully enabled and using to fix the bug-existed kernel function. > > With this feature, user can confirm their patch is successfully running instead of using crash to look into /proc/kcore to make sure this function is running now. (I always use this method to check my function patched ... lol). > > And I think further, if we use kpatch-build[1], `kpatch list` can not only tell us which patch is enabled, but also tell us the relationship between running function and patched module. > I think this is an exciting feature... Most of this information is already available in sysfs, with the exception of patch stacking order. Every new feature adds maintenance burden. It might not seem like much to you, but the features add up, and livepatch needs to be solid. We want patches that fix real world, tangible problems, not theoretical problems that it *might* solve for a hypothetical user. What is the motiviation behind this patch? What real world problem does it fix for you, or an actual user? Have you considered other solutions, like more organized patch management in user space? -- Josh
