3 ms·
I would flip it around and ask "Who wouldn't need this?" Think of it this way, operating systems like Windows have tons of vulnerabilities, which need to be pat
by ModernMech 5y ago
I would flip it around and ask "Who wouldn't need this?" Think of it this way, operating systems like Windows have tons of vulnerabilities, which need to be patched, and applying those patches takes a reboot. But people push off those reboots so long because they mean closing all applications and interrupting work, to the point where the entire computing ecosystem is more vulnerable and less updated as a result. Microsoft started scheduling updates in the middle of the night just to find a time that was amenable to users, but that doesn't help when the machine is turned off! So I think that feature, if it were deployed everywhere, would be a net win for everyone, not specific at all.
- mgerdts 5y agoBut if your application is just restored to its previous state, it is still using the buggy code that was patched on disk. If you page in new code from patched files, the program will not necessarily know that foo() now lives at a different address. Save/restore across shutdowns is much simpler when the code doesn’t change. When the code changes, you need some form of live patching (ala ksplice) in the mix as well. There are also concerns when the system interacts with external systems. Suppose the system state was saved just before the million dollar transfer was performed, the transfer was performed, then the cat tripped over the power cord without that being persisted. When the system starts back up, the app may make another million dollar transfer thinking it was the first one.
- ModernMech 5y agoSure, those are all complications, but I don't think it impacts the utility of the idea.
- glandium 5y agoWindows happily applies updates during the night on laptops even when the lid is closed. Then the next day, you open the lid and bam, nothing of what you left open the previous day is there anymore!