Re: Replace rules: was: Re: [PATCH v7 for-next 3/8] livepatch: Implement replace set for scoped atomic replace

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 1:31 AM Miroslav Benes [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, 9 Sep 2026, Song Liu wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 5:32 AM Miroslav Benes [off-list ref] wrote:
[...]

quoted

quoted

It might be useful for OS providers who want to make sure that their
kernel critical fixes can be installed on the user system. Otherwise,
customers might complain that some update failed, ...

Of course, it has a drawback that any livepatch with ``prov ides= 0``
would wipe any 3rd party livepatches, even when they are against 3rd
party modules.

My intention was not to regress and disallow a use case which is currently
supported. That is to replace everything applied no matter what.

I am curious about this use case. Do we really have users who:
  - Load patch A, with replace=false;
  - Load patch B, with replace=false;
  - Load patch C, with replace=true, replacing both A and B?

I think this is not good practice anyway. Instead, users would either use
a bunch of patches with replace=false; or only load one patch at a time,
and keep replace=true for all of them.

Did I miss any reasonable users or use cases here?

I am not aware of anyone specific but the scenario above does not look too
crazy to me. And the experience taught me that if something is possible,
there is definitely someone out there doing it. However, as I said, I
think the current implementation of the scoped replace should be enough
for everybody. If not, we will learn about the use case in a couple of
years.

Agreed that current version is capable to cover all these cases. Let's
ship it. :)

Thanks,
Song