Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute

From	Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute
Date	2017-08-16 17:00 +0200
Message-ID	<uf7XA-8ld-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<ucTcl-4sX-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <udpvz-6M-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri 2017-08-11 16:11:31, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:48:12PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > Now there is a sysfs attribute called "force", which provides two
> > functionalities, "signal" and "force" (previously "unmark"). I haven't
> > managed to come up with better names. Proposals are welcome. On the
> > other hand I do not mind it much.
> 
> Now "force" has two meanings, which is a little confusing.  What do you
> think about just having two separate write-only sysfs flags?
> 
>   echo 1 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/signal
>   echo 1 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/force

I like the simplicity but I wonder if there might be more actions
that need to be forced in the future. Then this might cause
confusion.

For example, we have force_module_load attribute in kGraft.
It allows to load a module even when it is refused by a livepatch.
It is handy when there is a harmless bug in the patch.

Best Regards,
Petr

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> - 2017-08-16 17:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2017-08-16 17:30 +0200

csiph-web