From: Li Bin <huawei.libin@huawei.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@redhat.com>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>, <live-patching@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <lizefan@huawei.com>,
<guohanjun@huawei.com>, <zhangdianfang@huawei.com>,
<xiexiuqi@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: disable/enable_patch manners for interdependent patches
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:39:17 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54C0B735.7070106@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150122035126.GB12927@treble.redhat.com>
On 2015/1/22 11:51, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 08:42:29AM +0800, Li Bin wrote:
>> On 2015/1/21 22:08, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Li Bin wrote:
>>> By this you limit the definition of the patch inter-dependency to just
>>> symbols. But that's not the only way how patches can depend on it other --
>>> the dependency can be semantical.
>>
>> Yes, I agree with you. But I think the other dependencies such as semantical
>> dependency should be judged by the user, like reverting a patch from git repository.
>> Right?
>
> But with live patching, there are two users: the patch creator (who
> creates the patch module) and the end user (who loads it on their
> system).
>
> We can assume the patch creator knows what he's doing, but the end user
> doesn't always know or care about low level details like patch
> dependencies. The easiest and safest way to protect the end user is the
> current approach, which assumes that each patch depends on all
> previously applied patches.
But then, the feature that disable patch dynamically is useless.
For example, if user find a bug be introduced by the last patch and disable
it directly, the new patch is no longer allowed from now unless enable the
old patch firstly but there is a risk window by this way.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-22 8:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-21 9:07 [PATCH 0/2] disable/enable_patch manners for interdependent patches Li Bin
2015-01-21 9:07 ` [PATCH 1/2] livepatch: Revert "livepatch: enforce patch stacking semantics" Li Bin
2015-01-21 14:06 ` Jiri Kosina
2015-01-21 14:36 ` Seth Jennings
2015-01-22 0:44 ` Li Bin
2015-01-22 1:01 ` Li Bin
2015-01-22 9:15 ` Miroslav Benes
2015-01-22 9:42 ` Li Bin
2015-01-21 9:07 ` [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: disable/enable_patch manners for interdependent patches Li Bin
2015-01-21 14:08 ` Jiri Kosina
2015-01-22 0:42 ` Li Bin
2015-01-22 3:51 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2015-01-22 8:39 ` Li Bin [this message]
2015-01-22 9:54 ` Li Bin
2015-01-22 13:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2015-01-23 1:08 ` Li Bin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54C0B735.7070106@huawei.com \
--to=huawei.libin@huawei.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=sjenning@redhat.com \
--cc=vojtech@suse.cz \
--cc=xiexiuqi@huawei.com \
--cc=zhangdianfang@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.