Re: [RFC v2 10/16] luo: luo_ioctl: add ioctl interface

[Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 05:42:28PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25 2025, David Matlack wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 2:36 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > While I agree that a filesystem offers superior introspection and
> >> > integration with standard tools, building this complex, stateful
> >> > orchestration logic on top of VFS seemed to be forcing a square peg
> >> > into a round hole. The ioctl interface, while more opaque, provides a
> >> > direct and explicit way to command the state machine and manage these
> >> > complex lifecycle and dependency rules.
> >>
> >> I'm not going to argue that you have to switch to this kexecfs idea
> >> but...
> >>
> >> You're using a character device that's tied to devmptfs. In other words,
> >> you're already using a filesystem interface. Literally the whole code
> >> here is built on top of filesystem APIs. So this argument is just very
> >> wrong imho. If you can built it on top of a character device using VFS
> >> interfaces you can do it as a minimal filesystem.
> >>
> >> You're free to define the filesystem interface any way you like it. We
> >> have a ton of examples there. All your ioctls would just be tied to the
> >> fileystem instance instead of the /dev/somethingsomething character
> >> device. The state machine could just be implemented the same way.
> >>
> >> One of my points is that with an fs interface you can have easy state
> >> seralization on a per-service level. IOW, you have a bunch of virtual
> >> machines running as services or some networking services or whatever.
> >> You could just bind-mount an instance of kexecfs into the service and
> >> the service can persist state into the instance and easily recover it
> >> after kexec.
> >
> > This approach sounds worth exploring more. It would avoid the need for
> > a centralized daemon to mediate the preservation and restoration of
> > all file descriptors.
> 
> One of the jobs of the centralized daemon is to decide the _policy_ of
> who gets to preserve things and more importantly, make sure the right
> party unpreserves the right FDs after a kexec. I don't see how this
> interface fixes this problem. You would still need a way to identify
> which kexecfs instance belongs to who and enforce that. The kernel
> probably shouldn't be the one doing this kind of policy so you still
> need some userspace component to make those decisions.
> 
> >
> > I'm not sure that we can get rid of the machine-wide state machine
> > though, as there is some kernel state that will necessarily cross
> > these kexecfs domains (e.g. IOMMU driver state). So we still might
> > need /dev/liveupdate for that.
> 
> Generally speaking, I think both VFS-based and IOCTL-based interfaces
> are more or less equally expressive/powerful. Most of the ioctl
> operations can be translated to a VFS operation and vice versa.
> 
> For example, the fsopen() call is similar to open("/dev/liveupdate") --
> both would create a live update session which auto closes when the FD is
> closed or FS unmounted. Similarly, each ioctl can be replaced with a
> file in the FS. For example, LIVEUPDATE_IOCTL_FD_PRESERVE can be
> replaced with a fd_preserve file where you write() the FD number.
> LIVEUPDATE_IOCTL_GET_STATE or LIVEUPDATE_IOCTL_PREPARE, etc. can be
> replaced by a "state" file where you can read() or write() the state.
> 
> I think the main benefit of the VFS-based interface is ease of use.
> There already exist a bunch of utilites and libraries that we can use to
> interact with files. When we have ioctls, we would need to write
> everything ourselves. For example, instead of
> LIVEUPDATE_IOCTL_GET_STATE, you can do "cat state", which is a bit
> easier to do.
>
> As for downsides, I think we might end up with a bit more boilerplate
> code, but beyond that I am not sure.

One of the points in Christian's suggestion was that ioctl doesn't have to
be bound to a misc device. Even if we don't use read()/write()/link() etc,
we can have a filesystem that exposes, say, "control" file and that file
has the same liveupdate_ioctl() in its fops as we have now in miscdev.

The cost is indeed a bit of boilerplate code to create the filesystem, but
it would be easier to extend for per-service and containers support.

And we won't need sysfs entry for status, as it can be also pre-populated
in kexecfs (or whatever it'll be called).
 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Pratyush Yadav

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.