* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Ah this reminds me when we chased kprobes dangerous spots and we
> > tried to declare __kprobes the functions which were too dangerous
> > to hot patch.
> >
> > We eventually gave up because it was impossible to fix everything.
> > And that was only for kprobes!
> >
> > So you can never tell if a given patch will impact a given
> > kthread.
>
> If the user (or the person creating the patch for them) doesn't
> understand all impacts of the patch, they have no business patching
> their kernel with it.
I think what is being somewhat lost is this discussion is the
distinction between:
1) is the patch safe
2) is the _live patching_ safe
It's really two different things. We should absolutely strive for live
patching to be safe under all circumstances, as long as the patch
being fed to it is safe in itself when building a new kernel the old
fashioned way.
I.e. it's natural that a kernel can be messed up via a patch, but this
subsystem should absolutely make sure that it will safely reject
totally fine patches that are unsafe to live patch.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
