[PATCH v5 1/5] kexec: Return -ENOSYS when kexec does not know how to call KEXEC_FILE_LOAD

Dave Young dyoung at redhat.com
Tue Mar 27 02:39:04 PDT 2018

On 03/26/18 at 08:17pm, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:53:24 +0800
> Dave Young <dyoung at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi Simon
> > On 03/26/18 at 09:25am, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > Hi Michal, thanks for the updated patches.
> > > 
> > > Dave, are you planning to review this series?
> > >   
> > 
> > I have same concern as I commented in last versioni, but seems
> > we can not convince each other with Michal.
> > 
> > For example for -EINVAL/-ENOEXEC, since it can be some misc
> > error checking in kernel code, it is not equal to an unsupported
> > syscall.  I'm not keen to think broken kernel file (include the case
> > for unsupported kernel format, but not limit to that) is equal as an
> > unsupported syscall
> I do not say it is equal to unsupported syscall. However, the kernel
> cannot really tell if the image is complete garbage or if it is in
> format it does not understand. The only way to check that is trying to
> load in the old way. I don't see any way around that if we want an
> --auto option which is of any use.

Maybe it is some personal taste, I tend to only checking syscall
supported so that it can be simpler.  And maybe from the beginning I
understand the "supported" as only for the syscall itself..

Anyway as having said before let's see how Simon think about this. 


More information about the kexec mailing list