Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1713029 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#1713029 — Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1713055

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 04:50:07PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> 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.

What if we put the flags in the per-patch dir?

  /sys/kernel/livepatch/<patch>/signal
  /sys/kernel/livepatch/<patch>/force

That seems pretty unambiguous.  The "force" is specific to the patch, it
clearly means we are forcing the patch.

-- 
Josh

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web