On Thu, 5 Sep 2024, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > 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. Yes, it should work as well. Wardenjohn, you should then get all the information that you need. Also, please test your patches with livepatch kselftests before a submission next time. New sysfs attributes need to be documented in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch and there should be a new kselftest for them. Thank you, Miroslav
