Kpatch no longer uses initrd to make sure the patch modules are loaded
at boot. The users could either install the provided systemd service
for that or come up with some other solution.
The messages mentioning initrd could confuse the users.
Signed-off-by: Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@virtuozzo.com>
"kpatch replace" is complex, buggy, and probably unnecessary. And
upstream livepatch has nothing like it.
Remove it from the kpatch utility, but leave the infrastructure in place
in the patch module and the core module for now.
Fixes: #456
Right now, unless the entire gcc version string, including build date
and package version, matches the distro kernel exactly, kpatch-build
won't proceed.
For some distros, it is very difficult to rollback to a previous
version of gcc and keep that version pinned on the system so that the
package manager doesn't update it.
For these user, add a --skip-gcc-check flag to kpatch-build to allow the
version check to be skipped. If the user does this, it is assumed they
know what they are doing. This flag is documented as "not recommended".
Signed-off-by: Seth Jennings <sjenning@redhat.com>
This may end up being useful in the distro patch module upgrade path.
If the core module also needs updating, we can first do "kpatch unload
--all" and "rmmod kpatch" before doing "kpatch load" of the new patch
module.
The user-installed vs system-installed dichotomy is confusing. Let's
just have "installed". RPM-installed modules can just call "kpatch
install" in their post-install step.
Allow the user to atomically replace all existing modules with a new
"kpatch replace" command. This provides a safe way to do atomic
upgrades for cumulative patch module updates.
A user may want to load a module without having to install it to the
initrd. In fact, 99% of the time I think that will be the typical usage
of "kpatch load", with a given file as an argument rather than a DB
module.
Have "kpatch load" and other commands take a file as input. If the file
is not found, then check the DB.
Try to be more consistent with the terminology. In various places we
call it a "hotpatch module", "hot patch module", or "patch module". How
about we just call it a "patch module" everywhere?
After removing the distinction between 'enabled' modules and 'applied'
modules in 022e42bc, we can change the 'apply' and 'remove' subcommands,
to more intuitive 'load' and 'unload' subcommands.
Signed-off-by: Seth Jennings <sjenning@redhat.com>
Evgenii Shatokhin
Alice Ferrazzi
Josh Poimboeuf
Seth Jennings
Udo Seidel
Gaetan Trellu
Seth Jennings