Long uptimes.

Stuart Jansen sjansen at buscaluz.org
Wed Nov 18 10:03:24 MST 2009


On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 09:46 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
> But even on linux, a kernel update requires a reboot.  Often the kernel
> update is critical because of a local exploit that it fixes.  Why do we
> have to reboot just to patch a kernel?  Sure it sounds complicated to
> patch a running kernel, but if I recall there were systems in the 70s
> that could do this.  There must be mechanisms that could be used to
> facilitate this in modern Linux kernels.

It is possible. Over the last decade, I've seen several approaches
attempted, but none has really achieved widespread use. Perhaps because
the idea is too scary? Perhaps because no one cares enough? At least in
part, I know MS is sitting on some patents even they obviously aren't
using them themselves.

The most recent example is Ksplice, which might stand a chance if it can
escape its single vendor status.

http://www.ksplice.com/
http://www.ksplice.com/uptrack/

-- 
"XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve your problem, you aren't
using enough of it." - Chris Maden




More information about the PLUG mailing list