Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] liveupdate: Replace compatibility string with a 2-bit pair feature header

[Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>]

On 10-26 21:14, David Matlack wrote:
> On 2026-10-26 11:50 AM, tarunsahu@google.com wrote:
> > Right, Required bit should be source kernel payload property to tell
> > target kernel that the payload must be handled to correctly deserialize
> > the data. It should be source kernel (userspace) responsiblity to make
> > sure it understand the target kernel before doing liveupdate.
> > 
> > Saying this, During deserialization, target kernel's required bit is not
> > necessary. So I propose the following truth table.
> > 
> > Source hdr  Target supported[i]  Action
> > ----------  -------------------  ----------------------------------
> > 00          0 or 1               Accept: feature absent in payload
> > 01          0                    Accept: ignore the feature data
> > 01          1                    Accept: use the feature data
> > 11          0                    Reject: -EOPNOTSUPP
> > 11          1                    Accept: use the feature data
> > 10          0 or 1               Reject: -EINVAL (invalid encoding)
> 
> Yes, this matches what I had in mind for the semantics.
> 
> To be explicit: the source kernel should set the bits for each Live
> Update based on what is actually preserved, rather than generating the
> header from a static per-kernel array. E.g. memfd would only mark a
> feature present for memfds that actually use it. That's what allows
> rollback to an older kernel as long as nothing being preserved depends
> on the new feature.
> 
> But looking at this again, I think the required bit is redundant. Whether
> a feature can be safely ignored is a property of the feature itself, not
> of any particular file. Every file that has a feature present will have
> the same required bit for it. The only thing that actually varies per
> file is whether the feature is present.
> 
> The required bit still has to be conveyed to the target somehow, since
> the kernel that needs it is the one that doesn't know about the feature.
> But it can be conveyed by the feature's number rather than an extra bit:
> split the flag space into required features and optional features, and
> assign each feature to one of them when it is defined. This is similar
> to the required_flags and optional_flags approach in struct pci_ser [1].
> 
> Keeping the same header shape as discussed with Pasha:
> 
> struct kho_ser_hdr {
>     __u32 size;           /* Size of header + payload in bytes */
>     __u16 nr_required;    /* Number of required feature bits */
>     __u16 nr_optional;    /* Number of optional feature bits */
>     __u64 flags[];        /* Required bits, followed by optional bits */
> };
> 
> Required feature N is bit N of flags[], and optional feature N is bit
> nr_required + N (using nr_required from the incoming header). The length
> of flags[] is DIV_ROUND_UP(nr_required + nr_optional, 64). Both spaces
> are numbered contiguously, so there are no gaps, and up to 64 features
> still fit in a 16-byte header.
> 
> Each bit just means the feature is present, so the truth table becomes:
> 
> Source bit       Target supports  Action
> ---------------  ---------------  ------------------------------
> Not set          -                Accept: feature absent
> Optional set     No               Accept: ignore the feature data
> Optional set     Yes              Accept: use the feature data
> Required set     No               Reject: -EOPNOTSUPP
> Required set     Yes              Accept: use the feature data
> 

I like this proposal. I bet most features are going to be either 
optional or required, and even if we ever have a magical 
sometimes-optional feature, it can have its own required flag. So, no 
need to pay double the cost on every flag.

Just need to make sure that optional features always start from 0, in 
their own enum, so the offset can be computed correctly in the incoming 
kernel.

Pasha