From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751993AbbAVJyv (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:54:51 -0500 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:15134 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750816AbbAVJyn (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:54:43 -0500 Message-ID: <54C0C8CF.8070804@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:54:23 +0800 From: Li Bin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Poimboeuf CC: Jiri Kosina , Seth Jennings , Vojtech Pavlik , Jiri Slaby , Miroslav Benes , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: disable/enable_patch manners for interdependent patches References: <1421831262-27869-1-git-send-email-huawei.libin@huawei.com> <1421831262-27869-3-git-send-email-huawei.libin@huawei.com> <54C04775.1070908@huawei.com> <20150122035126.GB12927@treble.redhat.com> <54C0B735.7070106@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <54C0B735.7070106@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.25.181] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2015/1/22 16:39, Li Bin wrote: > 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. > Ok, in this case we can unregister the old patch firstly. But it seems that the feature that enable/disable patch dynamically indeed useless. (Its value is only for the last patch to enable or disable.) >> > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > . >