From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.208.72 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793057327; b=yRhua1s7MPXsfGZFX8H+QeJs8LAWE6tr7RGig/HA0ZL7hUbhNC6iczGcoJjG3LWjMjD+ Lvofo3Tupl1wq3Cz4OxCwBU8Ws3MnGoqUGlDKQdhIQGDlXKLjGtOh6BY89q0VCw9znuxS bzQ3V+rLyygMmZX9BH6goFVn8zI2GUXfGTX4c1mDhGVzYFHHJ5pJmFbZI1TRwTYuRoc1k ovIrdJxdTZj2i9XAoiCmjkT0yaxHaS19L808CEqh9F2zum6EMGjgRwHSoBoowg6MGp+K5 v/H2zOgXenbJMe6mq3cM8arTwOI0HQ/jb8jcMSPgTuwPSBYEnfZj10VPa/YjV6+aVYg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793057327; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:DKIM-Signature:X-Google-DKIM-Signature: X-Forwarded-Encrypted:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Received:Date:In-Reply-To: Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type; bh=RxRwD13OM0fFBvRZdfnXU3z0HVhv0MS7kXCqcjKQ5Ko=; b=B1CXL2jODJAgjOkN0m6FgA3AWjb+ahDmFy/rrnC72joe2YDbwqy+zU63o7JRbkXb6Nmt 5ldKJEz8KKkCuVx62VeVP6jO3gZl5vIVAADe2rFxJ1BGJZ06G7o4Mh4bYTOsb7WYNqFNC oZMcRh8dZw9NeOZ8jsVQD3TTEUtjbsjW65CaBuUFs9xGXWHIHL56AVDloC6lkzbtx/YQM 4AixQxod7OSoHkKYhs4Z8WGQsmel40wmIEFfwpDPwNn399BrHsYliIx+9Mcs0Emx6YqDz Dd0Lr46J1xmVbQqiafKcoszoQG62S+9tjS6Wc8JudcTHN6fkwRpGFaMSoRC8yrFtVuA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--tarunsahu.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20251104 header.b=hK9TvNQw; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.208.72 Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74006606A320 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2026 23:28:47 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 74006606A320 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--tarunsahu.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20251104 header.b=hK9TvNQw Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-6b1d818b501so4309266a12.0 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:28:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20251104; t=1793057326; x=1793662126; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-type:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :in-reply-to:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=RxRwD13OM0fFBvRZdfnXU3z0HVhv0MS7kXCqcjKQ5Ko=; b=hK9TvNQwKUHIZZZjxzV0a2Cbv7bIzmVQ6+G1+2ZS+4rTVIMHR7NWA80kKuwDAAcZoF pLSOv89ov3CxcEG25n/cIU3vcbj43p8ZXy7YHgOAoZooXblEghty3Cp5OoXY961rTOFW vluruvAUIamnZHp/w6s/IA7uOvsu/nAHiF4juHAsJeVSwD1sGDyCemEYrF5pQaIy2+dJ QncJE2F0CD5HeT7HOcfVMBY502l/Fc/PZf3COQxRAYovwWZKrkVRC9iWD24UfTl8Wv1i 2Cb4/bNodGzK/8TOu/0nGkcK9Dm/cZFmh/qAGvSI9XFlwuGZNgDKyDxopMHwUIKLkmPa 2o7g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1793057326; x=1793662126; h=content-type:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :in-reply-to:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=RxRwD13OM0fFBvRZdfnXU3z0HVhv0MS7kXCqcjKQ5Ko=; b=H/lvGnt11dc8gMT4sU6EAw4dmcDvNwFwq2nzBI89v/f1TvL1FYaqAeyzcd4li7nSzH hQpI+1MianYH+HCawsK3MViC2vCpPLRldvLIVXG8u1QzzO1Y0zJVNzPUMdS2YN0+oSK9 fAyp5yvIvx14x39TsaK4OvMejQpSkZgbA8lRTxhZIuBgk3TWgNej0kC2uyYvClCOblxc sut3JN0fWlkLyAvV7DWqaXGtKTQ7CN598Jny8WYqem+yZDkY8Vt0Vp0erJS0Hp/TtHwX Iieyn5bLScH6l71iOWf+L4du+CMhjn1Pw1pEr9GdUQumDfZ+I4KdvhzY4YF2Sgv1L4KF ilYQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBxJ3suwAqk03xuO5L68k1bE2J7+TvkIk3/WzelNaMHBR362ro9K4qpDhEMdPHNFwNL5YcEoN5h7zisl@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYK4WffwPoxp36idEr1XWnmw1aOsCMEt41mbu27SKsjylubUlvFH QIb/zyfYMxoFdKimKALY0+YHXY527O6JtYq/isyQU2I71Q896syjbzTmQWs+t+aRB1Hk8uRED6z gwFQ9F8GVBytedA1MJQ== X-Received: from edxw25.prod.google.com ([2002:a05:6402:719:b0:6a7:4541:3de3]) (user=tarunsahu job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a05:6402:4026:b0:6b4:1037:2b87 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-6b44300b84fmr9392138a12.31.1793057325809; Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2026 23:28:45 +0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20261021152527.375070-1-tarunsahu@google.com> <20261021152527.375070-4-tarunsahu@google.com> <9huzzew0el59.fsf@tarunix.c.googlers.com> Message-ID: <9huzecdcghxu.fsf@tarunix.c.googlers.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] liveupdate: Replace compatibility string with a 2-bit pair feature header From: tarunsahu@google.com To: David Matlack Cc: Andrew Morton , joro@8bytes.org, Mike Rapoport , Pratyush Yadav , maz@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, jgg@nvidia.com, robin.murphy@arm.com, loganodell@google.com, oupton@kernel.org, kevin.tian@intel.com, alex@shazbot.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com, will@kernel.org, Pasha Tatashin , Alexander Graf , Bjorn Helgaas , baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, sagis@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, skhawaja@google.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" David Matlack writes: > 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 is subsystem property not the per-file. e.g. memfd_luo, it is set at compile time for a kernel. So every file will get that required bit set. It is not per file property. struct u8 memfd_luo_feature_state { [MEMFD_LUO_CORE_FEATURE] = LUO_FEATURE_REQUIRED } > > 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 > > There is no invalid encoding left to check. IIUC, I believe this will not work. To Communicate between source and target, We are defining a protocol, A protocol which will be standard for all the kernel. And each bit location in flags must have the same meaning in both the source and target kernel. Now in you approach, If Source kernel send feature N to target kernel, target kernel must understand Nth bit as the same feature. Even though the bit position in your approach is not fixed but they are fixed relative to their starting point. required: reference is 0th bit: So target kernel will undersatnd the bit as the same feature as source kernel. optional: reference is nr_required: So target kernel will understand the bit as the same feature as the source kernel. To make sure there is harmony between these two kernel. Even though a bit is not set in required for a feature that must be 0 in required range. and similarly for optional bits. So flags will look like 0b 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 o o o o o o r r r r r r 0b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 o o o r r r <= This is wrong because target can never know which bit mean what feature. So as you said there will be no gaps which will not work here. So, Based on the first, We still using same number of bits and increased complexity and no gain. For the current appraoch and V3 [2]. Think the below one as msb is required bit and lsb is feature present in payload bit. 00 FEATURE_ABSENT / DEPRECATED 01 FEATURE_OPTIONAL 11 FEATURE_REQUIRED 10 IS INVALID (analogy: required set but feature is not present) which can have different meaning in future if in future, a need arises to reuse this field. Deserialization can happen per feature from right to left. without jumping back and forth. Because of all these reasons, I believe current approach presented in V3 [2] is the better. It is close to your PCI series with two flags field for required and optional except I combined both field into one flags. In your above approach you do have two counts but not having gaps (which is wrong) and the way you proposed to parse with an offset is different. Let me know what you think. [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261026174217.603114-1-tarunsahu@google.com/ > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20261013162529.1928093-1-dmatlack@google.com/