Re: [PATCH v3 15/15] Introduce v18 dtb version

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6552 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 05:20:43PM +0200, Herve Codina wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:26:49 +1100
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > Ok, my proposal seems to be a no-go and so I will follow your proposal given
> > > above.  
> > 
> > To be clear, I'm rejecting the original proposal because I think it's
> > internally inconsistent (if you follow the consequences of decisions
> > far enough).  I'm not necessarily opposed to something other than the
> > above, as long as the rules for when unknown tags must be invalidated
> > (and what that does to the version) are made very clear in the
> > structured tag spec.  e.g. see an alternative proposal below.
> 
> No problem, I understand your point.
> 
> ...
> 
> > 
> > Essentially the theory of the proposal above is to be maximally
> > conservative: any write (adding, removing, changing, in-place,
> > whatever) will invalidate all unknown tags and downgrade the version.
> > 
> > 
> > But, here's an alternative proposal for invalidation/version semantics
> > that I think is consistent, while being a bit closer to your original
> > proposal.
> > 
> > 1. version and last_comp_version retain their meanings.  No new header
> >    version.
> 
> Ok
> 
> > 2. If version >= 18 the tree may include any structured tags, even if
> >    they weren't defined as of v18.
> 
> Ok
> 
> > 3. Some future version might _require_ certain structured tags to be
> >    present.  But a client must only rely on those tags if the version
> >    indicates it can.
> >      - e.g. suppose FDT_FOO tag is introduced in v20.  A client
> >        reading a v19 tree _might_ see some FDT_FOO tags (because of
> >        (2)), but cannot rely on them being present in all the places
> >        they should be.
> 
> Ok, kind of degraded mode. Whether or not a v20 compatible client can continue
> or not will depend of each tags known by this v20 client. For some tags, having
> them removed will not be a problem whereas it will be a problem for some other.

Exactly.

> Makes sense.
> 
> > 4. Any write to a property (including in place) invalidates all
> >    unknown tags on that property (they must be stripped)
> 
> Ok
> 
> > 5. Any write to a property invalidates all unknown tags on that
> >    property's node
> 
> Will see in the implementation. The offset of the written property will be
> incorrect after the write. Indeed, some tags (tags related to the node)
> available before the property can be removed. With splices instead of
> FDT_NOP, offsets change.

Oh, good point, this rule doesn't work.  I think we still have a
consistent set of rules if property writes don't invalidate parent
node tags (subnode add/delete still would).  Of coutse, that does
further restrict what sorts of information you could safely put in
node tags under this scheme.

> This also brings a question. Are API functions such as fdt_get_property_by_offset_w()
> need to be deprecated?

I think we can keep it - kind of like fdt_next_tag() this is a
low-level function.  If you use it, you're opting in to having to deal
with tag invalidation.

> Those kind of functions return a pointer to the data of a property for modification
> by the caller. We don't know if the caller will modify or not the property.
> 
> Without deprecated it we can change the function to
> ---- 8< ----
> struct fdt_property *fdt_get_property_by_offset_w(void *fdt,
> 						  int offset,
> 						  int *lenp)
> {
> 	int new_offset;
> 
>         /*
>          * The modification is goind to be done out of libfdt.
>          * Unknown tags are removed (rules for modification when unknown tags
>          * are involved) but also known tags. Indeed, we cannot know if the
>          * modification will have impacts on known tags
>          */
> 	new_offset = fdt_remove_all_tags_due_to_property_modification(fdt, offset);
> 
> 	return (struct fdt_property *)(uintptr_t)
> 		fdt_get_property_by_offset(fdt, new_offset, lenp);
> }
> ---- 8< ----
> 
> The idea is to be conservative here also and consider that property data retrieved
> for writing will be modified by the caller.
> 
> Also, the offset used as parameter of fdt_get_property_by_offset_w() is no more
> valid after the call.
> 
> Last point to have in mind, getting the node offset from the property offset will
> need to walk the tree from the beginning. It can be costly.

Right, that's what I was thinking of when I said this might not be
practical to implement.  It's doable in the common case where we alter
properties by node offset + property name, but not when we use a
property offset.  But the fact that this would change the offset of
the property in queestion is a much bigger showstopper.

> > 6. Adding or deleting a property on a node invalidates all unknown tags
> >    on the node
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > 7. Adding or deleting a subnode invalidates all unknown tags on the
> >    node
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > 8. Whenever a tag is invalidated and stripped, the overall version
> >    must be downgraded (to let clients know they can't count on tags
> >    being present)
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > 
> > Points (4)-(7) are all somewhat negotiable.  In particular, I'm not
> > sure how feasible (6) is to implement.
> 
> Well, this new proposal is more complex to implement than your first
> proposal but it has a finer grain to handle unknown tags on modification.

Certainly - that's why I proposed the other one first :).

> I can try to implement something based on this new proposal.

To be clear, I kind of prefer my first proposal still.  The question
is whether what the updated scheme buys (preserving more tags when a
bootloader makes minor writes) worth the added complexity of
implementation.  You're better placed to answer that question than I
am.

> > Note that because writes don't invalidate tags on ancestor nodes
> > beyond one level, this proposal doesn't permit tags to contain summary
> > information about an entire subtree that could be invalidated by
> > writes further down in that tree.
> > 
> 
> Well this doesn't look like an issue on my side. At some point if such tags
> are added, we can avoid any modification using the last_comp_version
> field.

Yes.

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]