Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] livepatch: add atomic replace

[Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>]

> > It is even more complicated and it is not connected only to atomic replace 
> > patch (I realized this while reading the first part of your email and 
> > then you confirmed it with this paragraph). The consistency model is 
> > broken with respect to immediate patches.
> 
> Indeed. I came to the same conclusion.
> 
> > 
> > func		a
> > patches		1i
> > 		2i
> > 		3
> > 
> > Now, when you're applying 3, only 2i function is checked. But there might 
> > be a task sleeping in 1i. Such task would be migrated to 3, because we do 
> > not check 1 in klp_check_stack_func() at all.
> > 
> > I see three solutions.
> > 
> > 1. Say it is an user's fault. Since it is not obvious and it is 
> > easy-to-make mistake, I would not go this way.
> > 
> > 2. We can fix klp_check_stack_func() in an exact way you're proposing. 
> > We'd go back in func stack as long as there are immediate patches there. 
> > This adds complexity and I'm not sure if all the problems would be solved 
> > because scenarios how patches are stacked and applied to different 
> > functions may be quite complex.
> >
> 
> I think if its fixed in the current code (before atomic replace is
> introduced), then it would allow the atomic replace to drop all
> references to previous modules, since we would know they are no longer
> in use.

That's correct. Although, I'll submit my force patch soon, we can remove 
immediate afterwards and atomic replace should be simpler with that.

Miroslav