lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: kexec: Clearing registers just before jumping into purgatory
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 01:44:19PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
> > No, I manually look up some addresses from /proc/kallsyms and then
> > modify them in the second kernel.
>
> An interesting approach I think most of the rest of us would have just
> built a module, or rebuilt our kernels.

Well yeah, but my kernel refuses to load unsigned modules, so.

> Now if this is a backwards argument to remove that silly code path it
> totally fails because now we know the code has not bit-rotted and
> that there are active users.

No, it's not any argument of the kind.

> If you are still pushing the signed-boot agenda I eagerly await your
> patches to make all of this work in a sensible way with signed binaries.

Vivek's working on a separate kexec system call for that, as we agreed
with Linus at LPC.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-12 02:41    [W:0.078 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site