hi Igor;

> On 29 November 2013 17:07, Aliaksei Katovich <a.katovich at samsung.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > hi all;
> >
> >         I would like to bring to your attention Tizen system rollback
> > feature.
> >         The idea is to provide possibility to roll back Tizen based system
> > to
> >         one of several known working configurations. Most obvious
> > use-cases are:
> >
> >         * system update or upgrade failed;
> >         * there are regressions introduced by system update;
> >         * User does not like features added by system update;
> >         * User wants to restore device to first time configuration;
> >         * User wants to restore device to factory defaults.
> >
> >         Proposed architecture is based on device-mapper thin-provisioning
> >         capabilities. Please find more details in attached document.
> >
> >         Before starting actual implementation of this feature I would like
> > to
> >         hear your opinion about presented architecture and the idea in
> > general.
> >
> 
> I see some reasons why part of these options are unfeasible/undesirable
> under certain circumstances:
> 
> * user has subsidized device
> If a way is found to break the simlock for a certain SW revision, the
> operator should
> be able to forcibly update all the units deployed in the field that are
> made available w/ subsidy.
> The user should not be able to rollback to some unlockable version.

Fair enough.

> * hole in DRM scheme is found
> This is a bit similar to the previous case but applies to both locked and
> unlocked devices.
> If a certain SW version is found to be exploitable for cracking DRM
> content, the OEM/operator
> should have the means to issue (possibly) non-mandatory irreversible
> updates.
> I'm not a lawyer but I suppose that neither OEM nor operator have the
> rights to impose a SW update
> on user-owned devices, however they can easily make it so that the
> following user-issued upgrade
> prevents any rollback. Preceded by some warning, of course.
> 
> So I think there should be means to forcibly and voluntarily permanently
> flush the queue or
> prevent any rollback, from before a certain version.

I reckon these two are more of a policy and are barely related to rollback
mechanism itself (which I personally would like to focus on) though good to
discuss too. That said, subsidized devices and devices with DRM dependencies
can have certain anti-rollback rules.

> Furthermore, I think it's not such a great idea to tie factory settings and
> overall device status.
> I would prefer if each SW update would also include its own specific set of
> "clean slate" configuration values.

Here are my thoughts regarding your preference:

* solution is not universal and is tight to certain implementation of system
  update which can/will undergo evolutionary changes - hence how to deal with
  compatibility issues;
* it might turn out that "clean state" solution will be way too complicated as
  it has to deal with several update generations (think of all dependencies);
* how to deal with 3rd party updates that might come without "clean state" set;
* how much extra space will be required to maintain "clean state" of each
  update; remember device-mapper provides thin-provisioning out of box.

> Without talking about factory.

I would not discard a possibility to do factory reset.

> Red Hat, afaik, targets different type of products where these issues are
> not present.

Sure, but frankly I do not think this prevents us from having policies
independent rollback mechanism in Tizen. Besides, to my knowledge Tizen
targets at being more than just mobile platform. Though I might be wrong
about the latter.

--
Aliaksei

> 
> -- 
> cheers, igor
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.tizen.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20131129/44f30375/attachment.html>
> 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to