On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 12:45 AM Yafang Shao <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 12:33 AM Song Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 12:46 AM Yafang Shao <[email protected]> wrote: > > [...] > > > > + > > > > +static struct klp_patch patch = { > > > > + .mod = THIS_MODULE, > > > > + .objs = objs, > > > > > > Nit: I suggest enabling the replace flag for this patch to align > > > with the recommended implementation. > > > > > > .replace = true, > > > > This is an interesting topic. To fully take advantage of the replace > > feature, we need more work on the BPF side. > > Right. > Replacement seems to break struct_ops registration and BPF > re-attachment. On the livepatch side, we should add support for the > 'livepatch tag' to prevent these types of livepatches from being > replaced ;)
I somehow knew you were gonna say this. :) But I don't think this is a strong enough argument (and will probably scare folks more). Thanks, Song
