On Thu 2017-08-10 12:48:14, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> Live patching consistency model is of LEAVE_PATCHED_SET and
> SWITCH_THREAD. This means that all tasks in the system have to be marked
> one by one as safe to call a new patched function. Safe means when a
> task is not (sleeping) in a set of patc
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:48:14PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > Last, sending the fake signal is not automatic. It is done only when
> > admin requests it by writing 1 to force sysfs attribute in livepatch
> > sysfs directory.
>
> 'writing 1' -> 'w
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > + for_each_process_thread(g, task) {
> > + if (!klp_patch_pending(task))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + /*
> > +* There is a small race here. We could see TIF_PATCH_PE
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:48:14PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> Last, sending the fake signal is not automatic. It is done only when
> admin requests it by writing 1 to force sysfs attribute in livepatch
> sysfs directory.
'writing 1' -> 'writing "signal"'
(unless you take my suggestion to chan
Live patching consistency model is of LEAVE_PATCHED_SET and
SWITCH_THREAD. This means that all tasks in the system have to be marked
one by one as safe to call a new patched function. Safe means when a
task is not (sleeping) in a set of patched functions. That is, no
patched function is on the task
5 matches
Mail list logo