Re: [PATCH] livepatch: support for repatching a function

[Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 05:51:11PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> One thing that makes me worried here is we basically apply patches in a 
> 'stackable' manner, but then this allows them to be removed (disabled) in 
> an arbitrary order. Is this really the semantics we want?
> 
> The scenario I am concerned about, in a nutshell:
> 
> foo_unpatched()
> 	foo_patch1()
> 		foo_patch2()
> 			foo_patch3()
> 		disable(foo_patch2)
> 		disable(foo_patch3)
> 	foo_patch1()
> 
> I.e. basically due to reverting of foo_patch2() while it wasn't in use, we 
> turn subsequent revert of foo_patch3() into foo_patch1() state, although 
> the function foo_patch3() was originally patching was foo_patch2().
> 
> If this is implemented really in a fully stackable manner (i.e. you 
> basically would be able to disable only the function that is currently 
> "active", i.e. on top of the stack), woudln't that provide more 
> predictable semantics?

Yes, I agree.  Thanks for the comment.

Would you want to enforce stacking even if there are no dependencies
between the patches?  I think that would be easiest (and cleanest).

-- 
Josh