Re: Replace rules: was: Re: [PATCH v7 for-next 3/8] livepatch: Implement replace set for scoped atomic replace

[Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1511 bytes --]

On Wed, 9 Sep 2026, Song Liu wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 5:32 AM Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz> wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > It might be useful for OS providers who want to make sure that their
> > > kernel critical fixes can be installed on the user system. Otherwise,
> > > customers might complain that some update failed, ...
> > >
> > > Of course, it has a drawback that any livepatch with ``prov ides= 0``
> > > would wipe any 3rd party livepatches, even when they are against 3rd
> > > party modules.
> >
> > My intention was not to regress and disallow a use case which is currently
> > supported. That is to replace everything applied no matter what.
> 
> I am curious about this use case. Do we really have users who:
>   - Load patch A, with replace=false;
>   - Load patch B, with replace=false;
>   - Load patch C, with replace=true, replacing both A and B?
> 
> I think this is not good practice anyway. Instead, users would either use
> a bunch of patches with replace=false; or only load one patch at a time,
> and keep replace=true for all of them.
> 
> Did I miss any reasonable users or use cases here?

I am not aware of anyone specific but the scenario above does not look too 
crazy to me. And the experience taught me that if something is possible, 
there is definitely someone out there doing it. However, as I said, I 
think the current implementation of the scoped replace should be enough 
for everybody. If not, we will learn about the use case in a couple of 
years.

Miroslav