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] " 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome