On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 07:20:43 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On 02/22/18 at 11:24pm, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > The new KEXEC_FILE_LOAD is preferred in the case the platform > > supports it because it allows kexec in locked down secure boot mode. > > > > However, some platforms do not support it so fall back to the old > > syscall there. > > I didn't read code change, just from patch log, I tend to not agree. > There are two options KEXEC_FILE_LOAD and KEXEC_LOAD, some platforms > do not support, why does some platforms not choose KEXEC_LOAD, the > working one? Because nobody wrote the support. If you volunteer to write support for KEXEC_FILE_LOAD for every platform Linux supports and add the respective syscall numbers to kexec so it knows how to execute the syscall on every platform I will consider it alternative fix. Some people will argue that not everyone applies the patches to support KEXEC_FILE_LOAD in the kernel overnight, though. > Why bother to make change in code? Because it is unusable as is. Just calling kexec fails with locked-down secure boot. Calling kexec -s fails on almost every platform except x86. > I believe there's > returned message telling if KEXEC_FILE_LOAD works or not. That is not a solution. A way to call kexec that actually works is needed. This patch removes the need to use the undocumented -s option to get the new superior syscall you seem to prefer. It will just do the right thing in most cases. It allows the user to select either syscall explicitly as well. I do not see the problem with that. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
