Slashdot Mirror


A "Never Reboot" Service For Linux

An anonymous reader writes "Ksplice, the company based on the MIT Ksplice project, is now offering its 'never reboot' service for Red Hat, Debian, and other Linux distros. You subscribe and get real-time kernel security updates that apply in-memory instead of rebooting. Last summer we discussed the free service for Ubuntu. Cool tech, but will people really pay $4 a month for this?"

29 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. How long till they.. by mystikkman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How long till they get sued by Microsoft?

    http://www.google.com/patents?id=cVyWAAAAEBAJ&dq=hotpatching

    1. Re:How long till they.. by wcb4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its a shame that MS never figured out how to actually implement this. How many times do I have to restart my computer to finish applying update?

      --
      I reject your reality ... and substitute my own.
    2. Re:How long till they.. by JSG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The patent on this was filed in 2002. Yet in 2010 I am still making a handsome profit in overtime rebooting customer systems on a "patch Tuesday" monthly frenzy.

      Please MS, don't implement this one.

    3. Re:How long till they.. by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I love the updates that require a reboot so they can install another update that then requires another reboot.

    4. Re:How long till they.. by nmb3000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, I love the updates that require a reboot so they can install another update that then requires another reboot.

      Ah, see now you're confusing Microsoft with Adobe. Adobe is terrible at requiring reboots for the most trivial tasks. At one point updating Acrobat Reader from the original 7.0 release to the then-newest 7.8 release took 8 restarts.

      I'll buy rebooting the system when the kernel is updated, or core services (lsass, winlogon, csrss, etc) get patched, but Acrobat!? The people who write the installers for Adobe's products have long been my arch nemesises (nemesi?) for this very reason.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    5. Re:How long till they.. by Curate · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh it's implemented, in Vista (SP1 and later) / Server 2008 / Win7. It does reduce reboots, but does not eliminate them. Some reasons: 1) Not all driver updates are hotpatchable, by their nature. The Ksplice paper discusses some of these problems and omits others entirely. 2) Some of the updates distributed on Patch Tuesday are updates to third party drivers, and since third parties don't use Microsoft's hotpatching technology or some other equivalent, these often end up requiring a reboot. 3) If you're applying a batch of various driver updates (which is the usual Patch Tuesday scenario), if even ONE of those updates to not hotpatchable then you'll still have to reboot at the end. So, hotpatching is not a panacea, it's merely one technique for reducing reboots.

      Reading the Ksplice paper, it's the same concept and almost identical implementation as Microsoft's hotpatching. It's pretty unbelievable that Microsoft's hotpatching was not mentioned in the paper at all, not even in the Related Work section or the References section. Hotpatching predates Ksplice by 6 years.

    6. Re:How long till they.. by BZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      The correct plural is "nemeses" (it's a Greek word, not Germanic or Latin as suggested respectively by your two proposed plural forms). Similar to how one pluralizes "axis", "synthesis", "analysis", "genesis", etc, and for the same reasons.

      I should note that any sane dictionary will tell you what the plural form of a noun is. Or heck, googling "plural nemesis" in a pinch (first two hits are dictionary entries for "nemesis" that include the plural form). Just for future reference. ;)

    7. Re:How long till they.. by jonadab · · Score: 3, Informative

      > ...which shows what is wrong with Microsoft's kernel

      It's not the kernel. It's the filesystem.

      Most filesystems, and in particular all the ones that are popular in the Unix world, have an abstraction/redirection layer sitting between a file's directory entry and the actual file contents. Unix people call them "inodes". The details vary somewhat depending on exactly what filesystem you're using, but in general the directory entry points to the inode, and the inode points to the actual file contents wherever they're stored. Because of this, a file can be changed or even replaced in situ, even while another process has the file open and is using it. The inode for the old file remains until the process that was using it lets go, but the directory entry is updated to point to the new inode.

      FAT and NTFS don't have inodes, so it's not safe to alter a file while another process has it open. So you have to stop every process that's using the file, before you can do that. The easiest way to do that (and in some cases the only way, e.g., if the file is a shared library that lots of programs use) is to reboot.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  2. Re:So instead of doing it right... by oldhack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    An interesting illustration of theory (how it should be) vs. practice (how it pans out).

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  3. Yes, they are. by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Stating the obvious, yes, they are.

    But third-party companies are under no obligation to offer their products and/or services for free, and this is a service of a third-party company (Ksplice).

    If there is a demand for this service, plus an unwillingness to pay Ksplice for it, it's entirely possible (and likely) that someone will come along and offer an open source equivalent. But until the itch is scratched, Ksplice is perfectly within the right to offer the service at a cost.

    1. Re:Yes, they are. by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Very true. However, the Linux kernel is GPL'ed.

      They provide binary patches which contain code that is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. What makes the binary ksplice patches derivative is they are converting patches that were created by other people under GPL terms, into a binary form suitable for use with ksplice.

      This means those binary patches must be distributed under the GPL, allowing recipients to share those binary patches.

      It also means they must make machine-readable source code available to all their patches, along with any changes they have made, and they must provide all compilation scripts, tools, and configuration files they use to build those patches. per the clause of the GPL that states:

      The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,

      I can see a lot of people willing to pay $5 or so per month for access to the patches for each distinct OS their systems run.

      And some big enterprises paying a per-system fee to ensure everything is fully supported, and that they can always call them for help if something goes wrong with any system.....

      However, I don't see that it can be legal for them to force you to agree to pay a per-system fee to use a binary patch.

      That would seem to be in violation of your GPL rights.

      Given we've already established the binary patch files must be distributed under GPL.

      Any kernel-mode components of the patcher must also be under GPL, and also any user-mode components that are specific to the kernel design.

      The rest can be reverse-engineered.

    2. Re:Yes, they are. by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The diffs themselves only exist in binary form, they are directly derived from the source code already made available by the distributor.

      There is absolutely nothing stopping you from using the already available open source ksplice tools to create the exact same binary diffs. The service these guys are offering provides some value-add to this process, namely:

      External support - that imaginary finger of blame that companies like to be able to point, even tho it means nothing... Especially important if you value uptime enough to use a system like ksplice in the first place.
      Testing - loading untested stuff into your kernel is generally a bad idea, with this service i would know someone else has tried this and made sure it worked.
      Time - how much will it cost to have your in house engineers compile and test these patches?
      Not free - some people think that anything free is worthless, so they won't even consider this unless it has a price tag.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  4. Hell yeah! by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Immortality baby! Immortality!

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  5. Re:Huh? by Donniedarkness · · Score: 4, Informative
    Nothing bad about it, it's just that sometimes it causes a few problems.

    I do tech support at a school. The moment that something goes offline (like our mail server), we start getting calls telling us that things are messed up.

    Before anyone asks: Yes, we try our best to only reboot after-hours, and yes, we tell everyone when a service will be down.

    --
    Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
  6. hrm... by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Color me stupid but wouldn't any application in which you'd rather not be rebooting (i.e. Router, firewall, file server, etc...) be the exact same application in which you'd NEVER want some 3rd party having access to your kernel? I mean, if a large percent of distros were using this I can just imagine it would be the A#1 target for every malicious coder in the world.

  7. Re:Free? by adolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

    Just because it's free software, doesn't mean that it's afraid of money.

  8. Re:So instead of doing it right... by el_tedward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Designing your own operating system isn't exactly a small feat.. Linux already has very good penetration into the server market, and offers the security that most organizations should have. Linux is what Windows should be. There's a LOT you can do with that kernel.

    Obviously complexity makes security difficult, but there's nothing wrong with making something complex if you're actually capable of managing it. Is setting up a rock solid firewall difficult for the average person in IT? Should we just get rid of anything in security that is relatively complex? I'd much rather have more options (not necessarily obfuscation) than be pigeon holed into something just because it's simple. Security is not simple, and it never will be.

  9. Re:So instead of doing it right... by drolli · · Score: 3, Insightful

    l4? qnx?

  10. Depends. by Hasai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Cool tech, but will people really pay $4 a month for this?"

    Depends. If it's your laptop, I suspect the answer is no. If it's your server farm, I suspect the answer is yes.

    As an aside: Novell used to run contests to see who had the server with the greatest uptime since its last boot. Best one I ever saw was the Netware server that ran so long that everyone forgot where it was and it was accidentally walled-up inside a closet. Wouldn't it be great if the Linux community could run this type of contest? :)

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

    1. Re:Depends. by linuxgurugamer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The following article Linux Watch details a couple of old SCO systems which did the same thing.

      Now, before you slam SCO, remember that before 1995 SCO wasn't "The SCO Group" which is infamous for the lawsuit. Back then SCO make some damn fine systems. I had a 80286 system running 32 users for one customer, at a time when Microsoft said it was impossible. That was running SCO Xenix, which was the first good Unix port to the PC.

    2. Re:Depends. by jpmorgan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ironically, Xenix was Microsoft's UNIX product, SCO was just a reseller.

  11. Re:Huh? by dotwaffle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, they're not.

    You see, one radar installation can feed multiple stations, and it's quite common for modern ATCOs to sit at a screen that has feeds from multiple radar sources.

    In fact, in the UK we recently pulled out all the old PDPs out of West Drayton and transferred radar control down to Swanwick running on relatively new equipment. I believe this was not done by "clearing the skies" first, they just handed over control to the new guys.

    I've heard things about US traffic control being old and antiquated, but I'd hazard a guess to say the vast majority aren't using vacuum tubes, CRTs or the like. I imagine many have converted to electronic paper strip bays for the flight plans too.

  12. Re:Huh? by pz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For a server running, say, a big web site, or a database, or something else where time is money, and there are a lot of zeros involved, uptime is crucial. When a stock broker's trading floor system goes down, the loss is measured in millions of dollars per second (disclaimer, my brother used to work for a Wall Street firm, his wife used to work for another, and I have two close friends who still work at a third; my estimate is based on things they have told me). Downtime is just not acceptable under some circumstances.

    Sure, if my GoDaddy-hosted web site goes off the air for a minute or two while the virtual server gets rekicked, I can't really complain. I end up rebooting my laptop once or twice per week. My desktop gets rebooted maybe twice per year for some hardware update. Users of single-user machines are generally far more tolerant of reboots since, nominally, they are the ones making the decision to reboot. When there are many users, though, rebooting needs to be coordinated, at the very least, so as not to interrupt work in progress. And, as alluded to above, when there's real money involved, sometimes reboots are not ever acceptable.

    For you, rebooting might not be evil, but some people do actually depend on high availability of their computers, and some of them are running Linux.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  13. That might work for you by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Funny

    but telling people to check their email when their mail server is offline probably doesn't work for them.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  14. Reboots are useful by kisielk · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would not trust such a service. Just because a kernel can be upgraded in place doesn't necessarily guarantee that same kernel configuration will be able to boot your system in an outage. Something like a messed up GRUB configuration won't be spotted until you actually try to restart your system. I think part of a regular maintenance strategy is being able to restart your servers and make sure everything is configured to come back up automatically. The last thing you want to is to be trying to figure out what's wrong with your boot config when you have an unplanned outage.

  15. Re:They better be encrypted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why not just compile the kernel locally, like normal people do

    Um. Someone else want to break the news, or should I just go ahead and tell him?

  16. Re:It can be quite beneficial by drsmithy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The occasional reboot, under controlled circumstances, is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation. Mainly, it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.

    More importantly, if your service architecture can't handle the scheduled outage of individual servers, then it is unquestionably broken.

    If you are concerned with individual server uptimes having a bearing on anything except your e-penis, then You're Doing It Wrong.

  17. Re:How long till they.. Never.. by tuomoks · · Score: 3, Informative

    First Microsoft is not very eager to sue anyone, second this is totally different mechanism, third Microsoft patent is an old technology - very old because it describes what we did in OS/360, OS/370 operating systems and applications a long, long time ago. Patching memory was (sometimes!) a daily routine for local systems programmer - updating live 24x7 production systems is/was fun but scary!

    Anyhow - $4 is cheap when someone is doing the pre-work for you. Actually - the more modularized / structured Linux (Linux == kernel!) gets, the easier it is to support dynamic / online updates with no interruption. There are systems where you can do it already, even all(?) Unix systems allow you to change the whole object in flight if the application is written for it. Actually I designed a while ago one for Windows, load new object, kill the old and the new is automatically used for next call / request / whatever. Tandem Pathway is one very good example, Erlang as a language and a system supports it, systems with failover to another cpu / node have always supported it since Datasaab "non-stop" system from (I think?) early 70's (Cobol kernel!)

    Now, giving the "skills" of current "systems programmers", I'm not sure that real time patching is a good idea? Right or wrong, today the "hard" skills, understanding operating systems, their interactions with hardware and applications, etc is very rare! Not a person problem but the documentation, the trust on products / manufacturers / providers, etc are killing the low level skills even the computers handle zeros and ones the same way as day one. And unfortunately the same problems on high level - miracle products will solve all the problems / providers and manufacturers know my problems better than my experienced employees - and I have a bridge to sell!

  18. Re:They better be encrypted! by teslar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone else want to break the news?

    Ok, I'll do it.

    Dear Hurricane78,

    please, do not be alarmed. You suffer from an interesting form of amnesia that makes you believe we are still living sometime in February 2010. You also thought that J Cameron's (not to be confused with the late 20th-century fictionfilmer J Cameron. This one is more like the factfilmer D Attenborough) documentary on our early days on Pandora was syfy. But that's ok.

    The fact is, however, that these days, normal people run "stock" kernels provided by "distros". It works pretty well and we think Linux is almost "ready for the desktop" now. If only we could get multiple monitors to work....

    While we're at it, I should also tell you that Ubuntu is no longer with us. They never really recovered from the unexpected Crappy Century bug after it's version numbers began to repeat in the early 2100s, turning almost all computers into a "Warty".

    This may all come as a shock to you. But do not worry. The nature of your amnesia means that you will very soon - right about now in fact - have convinced yourself that this post was humorous in nature and not actually reflective of reality. Trust me, many wish they could live in your world. The end of the 20th/beginning of the 21st century was the highlight for the human race. In fact, many of us are currently working on a project - codename "Charging" - that would result in the creation of a VR set in this glorious era. Like "Second Life", only more immersive. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and figure out where we'll get the energy to power this VR from....