Re: [RFC PATCH v2 05/74] libfdt: Prepare for metadata tag support

[David Gibson]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Herve Codina wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 11:58:17 +1100
> David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 11:48:34AM +0200, Herve Codina wrote:
> > > Metadata tags are tags carrying extra information, either global to
> > > the DTB, specific to a node, or specific to a property.
> > > 
> > > In several places (e.g. node/property iterators), these tags just need
> > > to be skipped. Introduce fdt_next_tag_filter() which wraps
> > > fdt_next_tag() and uses a user-supplied filter function to decide
> > > whether a tag should be hidden from the caller. Filtered-out tags are
> > > returned as FDT_NOP.
> > > 
> > > Introduce fdt_tag_filter_skip_metadata() a filter function whose purpose
> > > is to filter metadata tags; actual metadata tag filtering will be added
> > > when metadata tags are defined.
> > > 
> > > Metadata tags must also be handled when a DTB is modified. They have to
> > > be removed or skipped depending on the modification.
> > > 
> > > Here also, introduce fdt_tag_is_property_metadata() to provide a central
> > > check for whether a tag is a property metadata tag; actual metadata
> > > check will be added when metadata tags are defined.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  libfdt/fdt.c             | 34 +++++++++++++--
> > >  libfdt/fdt_ro.c          |  3 +-
> > >  libfdt/fdt_rw.c          | 90 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > >  libfdt/fdt_wip.c         | 23 +++++++++-
> > >  libfdt/libfdt_internal.h | 10 +++++
> > >  5 files changed, 140 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/libfdt/fdt.c b/libfdt/fdt.c
> > > index 7941632f..8c026f26 100644
> > > --- a/libfdt/fdt.c
> > > +++ b/libfdt/fdt.c
> > > @@ -323,6 +323,33 @@ uint32_t fdt_next_tag(const void *fdt, int startoffset, int *nextoffset)
> > >  	return fdt_next_tag_(fdt, startoffset, nextoffset, NULL);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +uint32_t fdt_next_tag_filter(const void *fdt, int offset, int *nextoffset,
> > > +			     bool (*tag_filter)(void *priv, uint32_t tag),
> > > +			     void *priv)  
> > 
> > I don't really see why a higher order function is more useful than
> > skipping tags you don't care about from the caller.
> 
> Based on discussion we had related to fdt_next_tag() during the series introducing
> structured tags, I has been decided that fdt_next_tag() will return all tags and
> callers will handle them.
> 
> With that done, fdt_next_tag_filter() doesn't make sense anymore. I have already
> planned to fully remove it.

Ok, great.

> > > +{
> > > +	int startoffset = offset;
> > > +	uint32_t tag;
> > > +
> > > +	tag = fdt_next_tag_(fdt, startoffset, nextoffset, NULL);
> > > +	if (tag == FDT_END)
> > > +		return tag;
> > > +
> > > +	if (tag_filter(priv, tag))
> > > +		return FDT_NOP;
> > > +
> > > +	return tag;
> > > +}
> 
> ...
> 
> > >  
> > > +int fdt_prop_remove_metadata_tags(void *fdt, bool force_inplace,
> > > +				  int prop_offset)
> > > +{
> > > +	int nextoffset, offset;
> > > +	uint32_t tag;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Only inplace using nopify is supported even if we could use an other
> > > +	 * method involving splices if force_inplace is set to false.
> > > +	 */  
> > 
> > As with earlier things, I'd really prefer to see this splice, based on
> > principle of least surprise.
> 
> Yes, splice will be done (already planned for unknown tags in the series
> adding support for structured tags).

Ok.

> > > +
> > > +	tag = fdt_next_tag(fdt, prop_offset, &nextoffset);
> > > +	if (tag == FDT_END)
> > > +		return nextoffset;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Look at all tags related to the current property. I.e. tags after the
> > > +	 * current property and before either the next property, a sub-node  or
> > > +	 * the end of current node
> > > +	 */
> > > +	do {
> > > +		offset = nextoffset;
> > > +		tag = fdt_next_tag(fdt, offset, &nextoffset);
> > > +		if (tag == FDT_END)
> > > +			return nextoffset;
> > > +
> > > +		/* Remove metadata tags related to the property */
> > > +		if (fdt_tag_is_property_metadata(tag))
> > > +			fdt_nopify_area(fdt, offset, nextoffset);  
> > 
> > The distinction between "metadata" and other tags doesn't make much
> > sense to me.  Specifically why would the tag being "metadata" make it
> > more of a candidate for removal?  What we need to know (for the
> > callers so far) is whether the tag is invalidated by changing the
> > contents of the property: I can't see how that would be related to
> > whether it's "metadata" or not.
> 
> All of this is going to be reworked based on discussion we've already had
> during the previous series (introducing structured tag) review.
> 
> The distinction was done because for "unknown" tags, downgrade should
> be done whereas for "known" tags it shouldn't.
> 
> Anyway, all of that is going to be reworked for the next iteration.

Ok, fair enough.  Should I stop reviewing the current version of this
series, since it will probably need a lot of rework based on my
comments to the first series.

> > > +
> > > +	} while ((tag != FDT_PROP) && (tag != FDT_BEGIN_NODE) &&
> > > +		 (tag != FDT_END_NODE));
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> 
> ...
> 
> > > @@ -332,10 +377,10 @@ static int fdt_add_property_(void *fdt, int nodeoffset, const char *name,
> > >  
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * nextoffset it at the first tag after the node.
> > > -	 * Skip possible unknown tags related to the node in order to add the
> > > -	 * property after those tags.
> > > +	 * Skip possible unknown tags and metadata tags related to the node in
> > > +	 * order to add the property after those tags.
> > >  	 */
> > > -	nextoffset = fdt_node_skip_unknown_tags(fdt, nextoffset);
> > > +	nextoffset = fdt_node_skip_unknown_and_metadata_tags(fdt, nextoffset);  
> > 
> > This makes even less sense to me.  The tags following the node belong
> > to the node, until either FDT_BEGIN_NODE, FDT_END_NODE or FDT_PROP.
> > We need to skip all of them regardless of whether they're "metadata"
> > or not.
> 
> Yes, I will rework that part too.
> 
> > 
> > >  	if (nextoffset < 0)
> > >  		return nextoffset;
> > >  
> > > @@ -453,6 +498,12 @@ int fdt_appendprop(void *fdt, int nodeoffset, const char *name,
> > >  		if (err)
> > >  			return err;
> > >  
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * We append data to the property. If known metadata tags are
> > > +		 * present, they are related to existing data and not impacted
> > > +		 * by data added. No need to remove them.  
> > 
> > You don't know that.  It might be true for the tags you have in mind
> > so far, but there's no guarantee.  It's a contrived example, but a tag
> > which gives "number of 0 bytes in the property" would be invalidated
> > by an append, for example.
> 
> We talk about known tags. "Known" tags are tags that will be added in this series.
> If other tags are added in the future, this could become incorrect indeed and should
> be handle when those tags are introduce (in the future).
> 
> Anyway, I will probably rework this part too in order to make things clear.
> 
> The idea was to keep existing known tags related to the property if not
> impacted by the append.

Well.. more accurately, because we know the tags, we'll know whether
they need to be removed or updated based on their specific semantics.

> > > +		 */
> > > +
> > >  		newlen = len + oldlen;
> > >  		err = fdt_splice_struct_(fdt, prop->data,
> > >  					 FDT_TAGALIGN(oldlen),
> > > @@ -484,11 +535,16 @@ int fdt_delprop(void *fdt, int nodeoffset, const char *name)
> > >  	if (!prop)
> > >  		return len;
> > >  
> > > +	/* The property is going to be removed. Remove its metadata tags */
> > > +	prop_offset = fdt_ptr_offset_(fdt, prop);
> > > +	err = fdt_prop_remove_metadata_tags(fdt, false, prop_offset);
> > > +	if (err)
> > > +		return err;  
> > 
> > All tags from the property to the next END_NODE or FDT_PROP need to be
> > removed, regardless of whether they're "metadata" or not.
> > 
> > Also, rather than removing them one by one, I'd prefer to see the
> > total length of them calculated, and remove the property and extra
> > tags with a single splice.
> 
> Will be updated in the next iteration.
> 
> > 
> > > +
> > >  	/*
> > > -	 * The property is going to be removed. Remove also possible unknown
> > > -	 * tags related to this property. Keep the dtb version unchanged.
> > > +	 * Remove also possible unknown tags related to this property.
> > > +	 * Keep the dtb version unchanged.
> > >  	 */
> > > -	prop_offset = fdt_ptr_offset_(fdt, prop);
> > >  	err = fdt_prop_remove_unknown_tags(fdt, false, prop_offset, false);
> > >  	if (err)
> > >  		return err;
> > > @@ -522,10 +578,15 @@ int fdt_add_subnode_namelen(void *fdt, int parentoffset,
> > >  		return offset;
> > >  
> > >  	/*
> > > -	 * Try to place the new node after the parent's properties and unknown
> > > -	 * tags related to those properties.
> > > -	 * Unknown tags are reported as FDT_NOP tags by fdt_next_tag.
> > > -	 * Skipping FDT_NOP tags will correctly skip unknown tags.
> > > +	 * Try to place the new node after:
> > > +	 *  - the parent's properties
> > > +	 *  - the metadata tags related to those properties  
> > 
> > Again, the "metadata" distinction doesn't really make sense.  You want
> > to place the new node immediately before the first FDT_BEGIN_NODE or
> > FDT_END_NODE tag within the parent node.
> 
> Here also, will be updated.
> 
> > 
> > > +	 *  - unknown tags related to those properties.
> > > +	 * Unknown tags are reported as FDT_NOP tags by fdt_next_tag_filter.
> > > +	 * metadata tags are also reported as FDT_NOP by fdt_next_tag_filter
> > > +	 * thanks to the filter function used.
> > > +	 * Skipping FDT_NOP tags will correctly skip unknown tags and metadata
> > > +	 * tags.
> > >  	 */
> > >  	tag = fdt_next_tag(fdt, parentoffset, &nextoffset);
> > >  	/* the fdt_subnode_offset_namelen() should ensure this never hits */
> > > @@ -533,7 +594,8 @@ int fdt_add_subnode_namelen(void *fdt, int parentoffset,
> > >  		return -FDT_ERR_INTERNAL;
> > >  	do {
> > >  		offset = nextoffset;
> > > -		tag = fdt_next_tag(fdt, offset, &nextoffset);
> > > +		tag = fdt_next_tag_filter(fdt, offset, &nextoffset,
> > > +					  fdt_tag_filter_skip_metadata, NULL);
> > >  	} while ((tag == FDT_PROP) || (tag == FDT_NOP));
> > >  
> > >  	nh = fdt_offset_ptr_w_(fdt, offset);
> > > diff --git a/libfdt/fdt_wip.c b/libfdt/fdt_wip.c
> > > index 7ca3ffbc..b2f9f8d1 100644
> > > --- a/libfdt/fdt_wip.c
> > > +++ b/libfdt/fdt_wip.c
> > > @@ -31,6 +31,17 @@ int fdt_setprop_inplace_namelen_partial(void *fdt, int nodeoffset,
> > >  	if ((unsigned)proplen < (len + idx))
> > >  		return -FDT_ERR_NOSPACE;
> > >  
> > > +	if (idx < (unsigned)proplen) {
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * The property existing data are going to be modified.
> > > +		 * The property metadata tags are related to the property
> > > +		 * data. Remove them.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		err = fdt_prop_remove_metadata_tags(fdt, true, prop_offset);
> > > +		if (err)
> > > +			return err;
> > > +	}  
> > 
> > Similar to removal, I'd prefer to see a calculation of the total
> > length and a single splice_region, rather than removing them one by
> > one.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Best regards
> Hervé
> 

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature