Hi, On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 19:48, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 20/01/2025 11:29, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 11:50, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 20/01/2025 10:32, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 11:27, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>> ... > >>>> Hi Ard, > >>>> > >>>> Just wanted to check how should we proceed forward? Should we try and fix the warning > >>>> and corruption during kexec as done in this series or not initialize memory attributes > >>>> table at all in kexec boot? I would prefer fixing the issues as in this series. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I would prefer kexec boot on x86 to disregard the memory attributes > >>> table entirely. > >> > >> Would you like Dave to send something like > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CALu+AoS8tb=HgaybDw5OG4A1QbOXHvuidpu0ynmz-nE1nBqzTA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> on the mailing list (wrapped in ifdef CONFIG_X86_64) > >> > > > > I prefer this approach. and no need for the ifdef, this is x86 > > specific code, and the memory attributes table is already ignored > > entirely on 32-bit x86 iirc > > ah yes, I ignored the file name when reviewing it and just focused on the function :) > > Will wait for Dave to send it. Ok, I will add reported-by from you and suggested-by from Ard. But I can not test the efi mem attr, I'd prefer to have your test results first. Could you confirm that? Thanks Dave
