On Tue, 6 May 2014 07:12:11 -0500 Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Live patching is a very sensitive and risky operation, and from a kernel > standpoint we should make it as safe as we reasonably can. But we can't > do much about careless users. Ultimately the risk is in the hands of > the user and their choice of patches. They need to absolutely > understand all the implications of patching a particular function. If > the patch changes the way a function interacts with some external data, > then they're starting to tempt fate and they need to be extra careful. > This care needs to be taken for *all* kernel functions, not just for the > few that are called from kernel threads. Ideally the kpatch tools should be able to somewhat prevent users from doing damage. Or at least make them type a sentence that says: I know what I'm doing and will not blame anyone but myself if this kills the system along with all my puppies and kittens. I'm guessing that kpatch needs to be marketed that a distro or "hired help" will be creating the patch and the admin only needs to "trust" the one that gave them the kpatch module to load. All the testing/checking that the module works will be done by kernel developers and not by any "users". -- Steve -- 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/
