Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> writes: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 06:59:41PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Am 11.10.2013 18:55, schrieb Matthew Garrett: >> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 06:47:19PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> > >> >> But you still need a magic tool which create you this list. >> > >> > I just read /proc/kallsyms. I'm really not doing anything complicated. >> > >> >> If you have a tool which takes two kernel images and create such >> >> a delta, fine. >> > >> > Isn't that ksplice? >> >> So, you have a variant of ksplice which is able to kexec? > > No, I manually look up some addresses from /proc/kallsyms and then > modify them in the second kernel. An interesting approach I think most of the rest of us would have just built a module, or rebuilt our kernels. Now if this is a backwards argument to remove that silly code path it totally fails because now we know the code has not bit-rotted and that there are active users. If you are still pushing the signed-boot agenda I eagerly await your patches to make all of this work in a sensible way with signed binaries. Eric
