On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 12:23:20PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote: > I am not a fan. Josh wrote most of my objections already so I will not > repeat them. I understand that the attribute might be useful but the > amount of code it adds to sensitive functions like > klp_complete_transition() is no fun. > > Would it be possible to just use klp_transition_patch and implement the > logic just in using_show()? Yes, containing the logic to the sysfs file sounds a lot better. > I have not thought through it completely but > klp_transition_patch is also an indicator that there is a transition going > on. It is set to NULL only after all func->transition are false. So if you > check that, you can assign -1 in using_show() immediately and then just > look at the top of func_stack. sysfs already has per-patch 'transition' and 'enabled' files so I don't like duplicating that information. The only thing missing is the patch stack order. How about a simple per-patch file which indicates that? /sys/kernel/livepatch/<patchA>/order => 1 /sys/kernel/livepatch/<patchB>/order => 2 The implementation should be trivial with the use of klp_for_each_patch() to count the patches. -- Josh
