Hi Jan, On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 16:42:33 +0200 "Jan Hendrik Farr" <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Philipp Rudo wrote: [...] > In [5] Luca writes: > > [...] we fully intend for the UKI format to be an open and stable > > specification, that anybody can support and rely on. > But that is unfortunately not where the format is at this point. > > What is annoying though is where this leaves a user that actually > wants this feature. They can carry a patch or they might have to wait > a long time. > > Can you indicate what it would take for the kernel community to consider > this spec as stable enough? I don't think there is a good answer to that question. In fact I believe if you ask 10 people from the community you will get 20+ different answers. My guess is that either (1) the spec is moved to some official standard committee where people spend decades to polish it before it makes it into the kernel or (2) there's a big flamewar on LKML until Linus had enough and passes his judgment on it. So definitely (2) ;-) Thanks Philipp > > > > In the end the only benefit this series brings is to extend the > > signature checking on the whole UKI except of just the kernel image. > > Everything else can also be done in user space. Compared to the > > problems described above this is a very small gain for me. > > Correct. That is the benefit of pulling the UKI apart in the > kernel. However having to sign the kernel inside the UKI defeats > the whole point. > > > [1] https://uapi-group.org/specifications/specs/unified_kernel_image/ > [2] https://github.com/uapi-group/specifications/pull/72 > [3] https://github.com/uapi-group/specifications/pull/73 > [4] https://github.com/uapi-group/specifications/issues/74 > [5] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/28538 > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
