On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:07:31AM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > I was confused by wording "in the middle". It suggested that there
> > > might had been enabled patches on the top and the bottom of the stack
> > > and some disabled patches in between at the same time (or vice versa).
> > > This was not true.
> > That *was* what I meant. Consider the following sequence of events:
> > - Register patch 1
> > - Enable patch 1
> > - Register patch 2
> > - Enable patch 2
> > - Disable patch 2
> > - Register patch 3
> > - Enable patch 3
> > Notice that patch 2 (in the middle) is disabled, whereas patch 1 (on the
> > bottom) and patch 3 (on the top) are enabled.
> This should not be possible at all.
> if (patch->list.prev != &klp_patches &&
> !list_prev_entry(patch, list)->enabled)
> return -EBUSY;
> When patch 3 is enabled, list_prev_entry() returns patch 2 and its
> ->enabled is false.
Hm, you're right. I'm not sure how I got that idea...
I still agree with my original conclusion that enforcing stack order no
longer makes sense though.
> > > Another possibility would be to get rid of the enable/disable states.
> > > I mean that the patch will be automatically enabled during
> > > registration and removed during unregistration.
> > I don't see how disabling during unregistration would be possible, since
> > the unregister is called from the patch module exit function, which
> > can only be called *after* the patch is disabled.
> > However, we could unregister immediately after disabling (i.e., in
> > enabled_store context).
> I think this is what Petr meant. So there would be nothing in the patch
> module exit function. Well, not exactly. We'd need to remove sysfs dir and
> maybe something more.
Sounds good to me, though aren't the livepatch sysfs entries removed by
klp during unregister?
> > > The question is what is acceptable to others
> > If there are any objections, this is their chance to speak up :-)
> > > and if it needs to be done as part of this patch set.
> > Maybe so, for at least a few reasons:
> > - This patch set makes the 'stack' obsolete, so it makes sense to remove
> > the 'stack' with it.
> Not necessarily. I like Petr's rebase explanation here.
I'm not sure what you mean. IIRC, his rebase explanation referred to
how we handle 'replace' patches, for which there is no stacking (as I
meant the term: enforcement of stack order for registration and