From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73] helo=mx1.redhat.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.89 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1esfHv-0000ss-8O for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 01:51:40 +0000 Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 09:51:18 +0800 From: Dave Young Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] kexec: fallback to KEXEC_LOAD when KEXEC_FILE_LOAD is not supported. Message-ID: <20180305015118.GA3878@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> References: <20180302092419.GB15374@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <20180302133252.69a36ffd@kitsune.suse.cz> <20180302124610.3tyvym3dayq3coiz@verge.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180302124610.3tyvym3dayq3coiz@verge.net.au> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Simon Horman Cc: Tony Jones , Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Such=E1nek?= , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Petr Tesarik On 03/02/18 at 01:46pm, Simon Horman wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 01:32:52PM +0100, Michal Such=E1nek wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 17:24:19 +0800 > > Dave Young wrote: > > = > > > On 02/26/18 at 01:00pm, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > > Not all architectures implement KEXEC_FILE_LOAD. However, on some > > > > archiectures KEXEC_FILE_LOAD is required when secure boot is > > > > enabled in locked-down mode. Previously users had to select the > > > > KEXEC_FILE_LOAD syscall with undocumented -s option. However, if > > > > they did pass the option kexec would fail on architectures that do > > > > not support it. > > > > = > > > > When no option is passed to select one syscall or the other try > > > > KEXEC_FILE_LOAD and fall back to KEXEC_LOAD when not suported. = > > > = > > > Again, IMHO the default behavior should not be changed.. > > = > > So adding a new option to enable the fallback would be ok? > = > I am also wary of changing the default behaviour and > I think a new fallback option would be better. > = > Dave? Simon, I have same feeling, and a new option looks good to me as well Thanks Dave _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec