Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] livepatch: Add "replaceable" attribute to klp_patch

[Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>]

On Tue 2026-04-07 16:09:39, Song Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 8:08 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > + * @replace:   replace tag:
> > > + *             = 0: Atomic replace is disabled; however, this patch remains
> > > + *                  eligible to be superseded by others.
> >
> > This is weird semantic. Which livepatch tag would be allowed to
> > supersede it, please?
> >
> > Do we still need this category?
> >
> > > + *             > 0: Atomic replace is enabled. Only existing patches with a
> > > + *                  matching replace tag will be superseded.
> > >   * @list:      list node for global list of actively used patches
> > >   * @kobj:      kobject for sysfs resources
> > >   * @obj_list:  dynamic list of the object entries
> > > @@ -137,7 +141,7 @@ struct klp_patch {
> > >         struct module *mod;
> > >         struct klp_object *objs;
> > >         struct klp_state *states;
> > > -       bool replace;
> > > +       unsigned int replace;
> >
> > This already breaks the backward compatibility by changing the type
> > and semantic of this field.
> 
> I was thinking if replace=0 means no replace, it is still backward
> compatible. Did I miss something?

IMHO, the semantic of the no-replace mode would be strange if
we introduce the hybrid mode. Especially, it would be strange when
it can be replaced by any livepatch with random replace tag/set.
Also it would just complicate the definition and detection of conflicts.

I am going to provide more details in the reply to Yafang.

Best Regards,
Petr