From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752607AbeBAPvf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:51:35 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53674 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751935AbeBAPvc (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:51:32 -0500
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:51:28 +0100 (CET)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
cc: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        jikos@kernel.org, Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>, jeyu@kernel.org,
        Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@virtuozzo.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PATCH v6 0/6] livepatch: Atomic replace feature
In-Reply-To: <20180201151807.xjrldhmwwuot4c2o@treble>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1802011649220.29533@pobox.suse.cz>
References: <20180125160203.28959-1-pmladek@suse.com> <alpine.LSU.2.21.1802011350200.26656@pobox.suse.cz> <1dd714ce-8d11-78b9-51f0-2b71734949e1@redhat.com> <alpine.LSU.2.21.1802011605450.29533@pobox.suse.cz> <20180201151807.xjrldhmwwuot4c2o@treble>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:08:14PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> > 
> > > On 02/01/2018 08:49 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Well, one more thing. I think there is a problem with shadow variables. 
> > > > Similar to callbacks situation. Shadow variables cannot be destroyed the 
> > > > way it is shown in our samples. Cumulative patches want to preserve 
> > > > everything as much as possible. If I'm right, it should be mentioned in 
> > > > the documentation.
> > > 
> > > Are you talking about using klp_shadow_free_all() call in a module_exit
> > > routine?  Yeah, I think in this case, that responsibility would be
> > > passed to the newly loaded cumulative patch, right?
> > 
> > Yes, but we haven't got an option not to call it here (as with callbacks, 
> > where we can omit callbacks completely with atomic replace patches). A 
> > live patch author must be aware of this and use shadow variables 
> > appropriately.
> 
> So maybe we should recommend that shadow variables generally be freed
> from a post-unpatch callback.

Yes, that's a possibility. In other words, if there is a need to call 
klp_shadow_free_all() somewhere, it should be in a post-unpatch callback.

Miroslav