On Sat Sep 7, 2024 at 2:27 PM EEST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri Sep 6, 2024 at 1:54 PM EEST, Philipp Rudo wrote: > > Let me throw an other wild idea in the ring. Instead of implementing > > a EFI runtime we could also include a eBPF version of the stub into the > > images. kexec could then extract the eBPF program and let it run just > > like any other eBPF program with all the pros (and cons) that come with > > it. That won't be as generic as the EFI runtime, e.g. you couldn't > > simply kexec any OS installer. On the other hand it would make it > > easier to port UKIs et al. to non-EFI systems. What do you think? > > BPF would have some guarantees that are favorable such as programs > always end, even faulty ones. It always has implicit "ExitBootServices". > > Just a remark. Some days ago I was thinking could some of the kernel functionality be eBPF at least like in formal theory because most of it is amortized, i.e. does a fixed chunk of work. Not going into that rabbit hole but I really like this idea and could be good experimentation ground for such innovation. BR, Jarkko _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
