From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935921AbdGTOp2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:45:28 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47114 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934805AbdGTOp1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:45:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:45:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Miroslav Benes To: Joe Lawrence cc: live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf , Jessica Yu , Jiri Kosina , Petr Mladek Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] livepatch: introduce shadow variable API In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1498664247-12296-1-git-send-email-joe.lawrence@redhat.com> <1498664247-12296-2-git-send-email-joe.lawrence@redhat.com> <20170718202107.3hsptpdspr26snxc@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > > + * > > > > + * Note: allocates @new_size space for shadow variable data and copies > > > > + * @new_size bytes from @new_data into the shadow varaible's own @new_data > > > > + * space. If @new_data is NULL, @new_size is still allocated, but no > > > > + * copy is performed. > > > > > > I must say I'm not entirely happy with this. I don't know if this is what > > > Petr had in mind (I'm sure he'll get to the patch set soon). Calling > > > memcpy instead of a simple assignment in v1 seems worse. > > > > This change was a bit of a experiment on my part in reaction to > > adding klp_shadow_get_or_attach(). > > > > I like the simplicity of v1's pointer assignment -- in fact, moving all > > allocation responsiblity (klp_shadow meta-data and data[] area) out to > > the caller is doable, though implementing klp_shadow_get_or_attach() and > > and klp_shadow_detach_all() complicates matters, for example, adding an > > alloc/release callback. I originally attempted this for v2, but turned > > back when the API and implementation grew complicated. If the memcpy > > and gfp_flag restrictions are too ugly, I can try revisting that > > approach. Ideas welcome :) > > Well, I didn't like callbacks either :). And no, I do not have a better > idea. I still need to think about it. Done and I agree that memcpy approach is not so bad after all :). So I'm fine with it. Miroslav