Re: [PATCH 0/8] livepatch: klp-convert tool

[Miroslav Benes]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:42:09AM -0300, Joao Moreira wrote:
> > > Sounds good!  For klp-convert to be successful, we really need a
> > > strategy for dealing with such optimizations.  I'm thinking that a
> > > '-fpreserve-function-abi' flag would be the cleanest way to handle it.
> > > 
> > > If we don't have a strategy for dealing with optimizations, then we may
> > > instead need to go with a binary diff-based tool like kpatch-build.
> > 
> > I'm currently looking into binary diff-based solutions to deal with this
> > problem. My plan is to submit a second patch set once I have it functional
> > and land both things (klp-convert and bin-diff) in two different steps.
> 
> Instead of having multiple approaches, I'd strongly prefer that we
> converge on a single in-tree approach that works for everybody.
> 
> (Whether that will be source-based like klp-convert or binary-based like
> kpatch-build, I don't know.)

I think that klp-convert can work with both. Even with non-source-based 
solution you need something to generate those relocation records. I 
consider klp-convert as a part of the building pipeline.

> BTW, what is bin-diff?  Have you seen kpatch-build?

I'm speaking for Joao here, but we discussed this personally and I think 
he meant approach based on asmtool 
(https://github.com/joergroedel/asmtool). We'd like to explore as much as 
possible.

We also considered complete source-based solution. Nicolai Stange works on 
that (or at least on something which would make it possible).

We can decide what to have in upstream afterwards. But I still think that 
klp-convert will be part of it in some form. Am I missing something?
 
> > Is there any issue with following this schedule? Meaning, do you guys still
> > plan on reviewing this patch set or do you prefer me to do something
> > differently in terms of approach?
> 
> IMO, klp-convert will only be useful if we have a realistic strategy for
> dealing with GCC optimizations.  So I'd say we should follow through on
> that with the compiler folks before spending too much more time on it.

Yes, I'm all for a solution on GCC side, but that may take a while and 
even then it is still a huge step to get it into a distribution (we have 
GCC 4.8.5 in SLE12 :)).

However, there is an easy temporary solution. You can add all 
referenced optimized functions to a livepatch and let klp-convert process 
the rest.

Miroslav