Am Mittwoch, 10 August 2016, 13:41:08 schrieb Michael Ellerman:
> Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> > Am Dienstag, 09 August 2016, 09:01:13 schrieb Mimi Zohar:
> >> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 20:59 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >> > Mimi Zohar <zohar at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> >> > > +/* Some details preceding the binary serialized measurement list
> >> > > */
> >> > > +struct ima_kexec_hdr {
> >> > > + unsigned short version;
> >> > > + unsigned long buffer_size;
> >> > > + unsigned long count;
> >> > > +} __packed;
> >> > > +
> >> >
> >> > Am I understanding it correctly that this structure is passed between
> >> > kernels?
> >>
> >> Yes, the header prefixes the measurement list, which is being passed on
> >> the same computer to the next kernel. Could the architecture (eg.
> >> LE/BE) change between soft re-boots?
> >
> > Yes. I am able to boot a BE kernel from an LE kernel with my patches.
> > Whether we want to support that or not is another question...
>
> Yes you must support that. BE -> LE and vice versa.
I didn't test BE - LE yet, but will do.
> You should also consider the possibility that the next kernel is not
> Linux.
If the next kernel is an ELF binary and it supports the kexec "calling
convention", it should work too. What could possibly go wrong? I can try
FreeBSD (I suppose it's an ELF kernel) and see what happens.
--
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
