Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] liveupdate: Preserve tmpfs files across Live Update

[David Matlack]

On 2026-11-05 04:42 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2026 at 01:02:06AM +0000, David Matlack wrote:
> >   4. Retrieve files that were preserved from a tmpfs mount onto a tmpfs
> >      mount chosen by userspace, via the new struct
> >      liveupdate_shmem_retrieve_arg. The kernel creates the file as if by
> >      openat(dirfd, ".", O_TMPFILE | flags, mode), so the file gets the
> >      same flags, owner, permission checks and security labels as any
> >      other new file in that directory, and is charged to that mount.
> >      The kernel fills the file before returning it, so nothing else can
> >      access the file before it is complete, and userspace links it at
> >      the path it wants with linkat() (patch 7).
>
> No, sorry. That's not what we discussed at LPC and it's not what the RFC
> and v1 did.

[...]

> So instead of LUO handing out a file descriptor for a file it invented,
> let userspace create the file, O_TMPFILE, O_CREAT, whatever it likes,
> with the owner, mode and xattrs it wants, and let LUO put the contents
> into it. That's what the RFC did.

I'm fine with going back to that in v4. The retrieve argument will just
be a file descriptor for the target file, and LUO will only restore the
contents and size into it. Everything else about the file is up to
userspace.

> The checks on the target are trivial: a writable fd to an empty shmem
> file with the inode lock held while you fill it. A tmpfs file can't be
> sealed, it only ever has F_SEAL_SEAL, so there's nothing to restore but
> contents and size anyway.

Sounds good. The one other check I plan to add is rejecting a target
that LUO is already managing, e.g. a file that is preserved in an
outgoing session and whose size is frozen.

LUO will also add the folios while i_size is still 0, and set i_size
last. So reads, page faults and memfd_pin_folios() wouldn't see the
folios until the file is complete, and if the retrieve fails partway
through the target is left empty.

> I also really dislike file_open_root() for this. It's an openat()
> emulation inside an ioctl which is completely terrible.

That is fair, it is ugly. That all goes away in v4.

> > - Is patch 9 (retrieving tmpfs files with O_RDONLY) worth merging?
>
> No. With userspace creating the file this doesn't exist.

Ack.

LUO holds a reference to every retrieved file until the session is
finished. Since the target has to be writable, executing a restored file
will fail with -ETXTBSY until userspace finishes the session. But as
Pratyush pointed out, userspace can put binaries in a special session
that can be finished immediately so that the binaries can than be
executed.

> The preserve side seems fine to me. If you freeze the size of a file
> for everyone you better be allowed to write to it.

Thanks for taking a look.