From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: jikos@kernel.org, jeyu@kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] livepatch: Send a fake signal periodically
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 09:49:50 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1806060945350.19628@pobox.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180605140040.in2ndsb34o42hert@treble>
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 09:17:52AM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:16:35PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > > An administrator may send a fake signal to all remaining blocking tasks
> > > > of a running transition by writing to
> > > > /sys/kernel/livepatch/<patch>/signal attribute. Let's do it
> > > > automatically after 10 seconds. The timeout is chosen deliberately. It
> > > > gives the tasks enough time to transition themselves.
> > > >
> > > > Theoretically, sending it once should be more than enough. Better be safe
> > > > than sorry, so send it periodically.
> > >
> > > This is the part I don't understand. Why do it periodically?
> >
> > I met (rare!) cases when doing it once was not enough due to a race and
> > the signal was missed. However involved testcases were really artificial.
> >
> > > Instead, might it make sense to just send the signals once, and if that
> > > doesn't work, reverse the transition? Then we could make patching a
> > > synchronous operation. But then, it might be remotely possible that the
> > > reverse operation also stalls (e.g., on a kthread). So, maybe it's best
> > > to just leave all these controls in the hands of the user.
> >
> > And there is 'force' option...
> >
> > So given all this, I'd call klp_send_signals() once and then leave it up
> > to the user. Would that work for you?
>
> Well, I don't know. Since the patching process will already need to be
> managed by user space, what's the benefit of having the kernel doing
> only this part of it?
I'm not sure about 'will already need to be managed by user space' part.
Sending the fake signal would unblock transition in certain cases "for
free". No user interaction is really needed and we can do it
automatically. That's why I find it beneficial.
If it does not help, then the user must decide what to do next. Reversion
or force. That's up to them.
Miroslav
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-06 7:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-04 14:16 [PATCH 0/2] Periodic fake signal Miroslav Benes
2018-06-04 14:16 ` [PATCH 1/2] livepatch: Send a fake signal periodically Miroslav Benes
2018-06-04 18:03 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-06-05 7:17 ` Miroslav Benes
2018-06-05 14:01 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2018-06-06 7:49 ` Miroslav Benes [this message]
2018-06-11 8:45 ` Petr Mladek
2018-06-04 14:16 ` [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: Remove signal sysfs attribute Miroslav Benes
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=alpine.LSU.2.21.1806060945350.19628@pobox.suse.cz \
--to=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=jeyu@kernel.org \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox