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 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1f0l4d-0005A0-Gl for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:39:24 +0000 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:39:04 +0800 From: Dave Young Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] kexec: Return -ENOSYS when kexec does not know how to call KEXEC_FILE_LOAD Message-ID: <20180327093904.GA4681@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> References: <20180302091706.GA15374@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <20180326072558.iidgbvxi2fh7cjgu@verge.net.au> <20180326075324.GA22899@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <20180326201734.34ba54b3@kitsune.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180326201734.34ba54b3@kitsune.suse.cz> 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: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Such=E1nek?= Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, Simon Horman , Petr Tesarik , Tony Jones On 03/26/18 at 08:17pm, Michal Such=E1nek wrote: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:53:24 +0800 > Dave Young wrote: > = > > Hi Simon > > On 03/26/18 at 09:25am, Simon Horman wrote: > > > Hi Michal, thanks for the updated patches. > > > = > > > Dave, are you planning to review this series? > > > = > > = > > I have same concern as I commented in last versioni, but seems > > we can not convince each other with Michal. > > = > > For example for -EINVAL/-ENOEXEC, since it can be some misc > > error checking in kernel code, it is not equal to an unsupported > > syscall. I'm not keen to think broken kernel file (include the case > > for unsupported kernel format, but not limit to that) is equal as an > > unsupported syscall > = > I do not say it is equal to unsupported syscall. However, the kernel > cannot really tell if the image is complete garbage or if it is in > format it does not understand. The only way to check that is trying to > load in the old way. I don't see any way around that if we want an > --auto option which is of any use. Maybe it is some personal taste, I tend to only checking syscall supported so that it can be simpler. And maybe from the beginning I understand the "supported" as only for the syscall itself.. Anyway as having said before let's see how Simon think about this. = Thanks Dave _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec