Hi James, On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 3:44 PM James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Now that kexec_walk_memblock() can do the crash-kernel placement itself > architectures that don't support kdump via kexe_file_load() need to > explicitly forbid it. > > We don't support this on arm64 until the kernel can add the elfcorehdr > and usable-memory-range fields to the DT. Without these the crash-kernel > overwrites the previous kernel's memory during startup. > > Add a check to refuse crash image loading. > > Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx> > --- > > Context: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20181206155424.GA4422@xxxxxxx > > arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c > index 1ad1d5f8f024..07bf740bea91 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c > @@ -47,6 +47,10 @@ static void *image_load(struct kimage *image, > struct kexec_segment *kernel_segment; > int ret; > > + /* We don't support crash kernels yet. */ > + if (image->type == KEXEC_TYPE_CRASH) > + return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP); > + > /* > * We require a kernel with an unambiguous Image header. Per > * Documentation/booting.txt, this is the case when image_size > -- > 2.19.2 > TBH, I would have loved the complete 'kexec_file_load' support to have made way upstream for arm64 as well, but I understand that it is stuck till we have an agreement on the DT side of things. So, refusing a crash image loading in such a case makes sense for now. So, please feel free to add: Reviewed-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, Bhupesh _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
