On Wed 2017-08-30 14:51:16, Miroslav Benes wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 04:50:07PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:

On Fri 2017-08-11 16:11:31, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:48:12PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:

Now there is a sysfs attribute called "force", which provides two functionalities, "signal" and "force" (previously "unmark"). I haven't
managed to come up with better names. Proposals are welcome. On the other hand I do not mind it much.

Now "force" has two meanings, which is a little confusing. What do you think about just having two separate write-only sysfs flags?

echo 1 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/signal
echo 1 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/force

I like the simplicity but I wonder if there might be more actions
that need to be forced in the future. Then this might cause
confusion.

For example, we have force_module_load attribute in kGraft.
It allows to load a module even when it is refused by a livepatch.
It is handy when there is a harmless bug in the patch.

We can add force_module_load attribute too in that case. But I see your point, I just don't think it would be that serious as far as confusion is concerned.

What if we put the flags in the per-patch dir?

/sys/kernel/livepatch/<patch>/signal
/sys/kernel/livepatch/<patch>/force

That seems pretty unambiguous. The "force" is specific to the patch, it clearly means we are forcing the patch.

Petr, would this solve your worries?

I like it.

Best Regards,
Petr

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)