>>> On 11.08.16 at 12:56, <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] livepach: Add
> .livepatch.hooks functions and test-case"):
>> On 10.08.16 at 11:46, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>> > Odd. I've tr
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] livepach: Add
.livepatch.hooks functions and test-case"):
> On 10.08.16 at 11:46, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> > Odd. I've tried this simple example:
> >
> > typedef int fn_t(void);
...
> > const f
>>> On 10.08.16 at 11:46, wrote:
> Odd. I've tried this simple example:
>
> typedef int fn_t(void);
>
> struct s {
> unsigned n;
> fn_t**fn;
> fn_t*const*fnc;
> const fn_t**cfn;
> };
>
> int test1(const struct s*ps) {
> unsigned i;
> int
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:46:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.08.16 at 20:01, wrote:
> >> >> > @@ -70,7 +71,11 @@ struct payload {
> >> >> > unsigned int nsyms; /* Nr of entries in .strtab
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > symbols. */
> >> >> >
>>> On 09.08.16 at 20:01, wrote:
>> >> > @@ -70,7 +71,11 @@ struct payload {
>> >> > unsigned int nsyms; /* Nr of entries in .strtab
>> >> > and
>> >> > symbols. */
>> >> > struct livepatch_build_id id;/*
>> >> >
> >> > @@ -70,7 +71,11 @@ struct payload {
> >> > unsigned int nsyms; /* Nr of entries in .strtab
> >> > and
> >> > symbols. */
> >> > struct livepatch_build_id id;/*
> >> > ELFNOTE_DESC(.note.gnu.build-id) of the payload. */
> >> > struct
On 08/08/16 16:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.08.16 at 16:10, wrote:
>> On 08/08/16 15:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.08.16 at 15:42, wrote:
On 05/08/16 16:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.08.16 at 17:49,
>>> On 08.08.16 at 16:10, wrote:
> On 08/08/16 15:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.08.16 at 15:42, wrote:
>>> On 05/08/16 16:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 04.08.16 at 17:49, wrote:
> In general, the hooks
On 08/08/16 15:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.08.16 at 15:42, wrote:
>> On 05/08/16 16:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.08.16 at 17:49, wrote:
In general, the hooks provide flexibility when having to deal with
unforeseen cases,
>>> On 08.08.16 at 15:42, wrote:
> On 05/08/16 16:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.08.16 at 17:49, wrote:
>>> In general, the hooks provide flexibility when having to deal with
>>> unforeseen cases, but their application should be rarely
On 05/08/16 16:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.08.16 at 17:49, wrote:
>> In general, the hooks provide flexibility when having to deal with
>> unforeseen cases, but their application should be rarely required (<
>> 10%)."
>
> But the greater flexibility of course comes
>>> On 05.08.16 at 23:08, wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 09:35:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 04.08.16 at 17:49, wrote:
>> > In general, the hooks provide flexibility when having to deal with
>> > unforeseen cases, but their application
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 09:35:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 04.08.16 at 17:49, wrote:
> > In general, the hooks provide flexibility when having to deal with
> > unforeseen cases, but their application should be rarely required (<
> > 10%)."
>
> But the greater
>>> On 04.08.16 at 17:49, wrote:
> In general, the hooks provide flexibility when having to deal with
> unforeseen cases, but their application should be rarely required (<
> 10%)."
But the greater flexibility of course comes with increased chances
of screwing things up.
From: Ross Lagerwall
Add hook functions which run during patch apply and patch revert.
Hook functions are used by livepatch payloads to manipulate data
structures during patching, etc.
One use case is the XSA91. As Martin mentions it:
"If we have shadow variables, we
15 matches
Mail list logo