On 12/1/25 20:10, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 07:32:38PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
>> I think we are in agreement: from what I recall, this software contract used to be
>> rather simple and stable.
> 
> Ok, please point me to the *explicit* document in our tree which says: "we
> won't break the kernel and support kexec with any kernel version"?

Just to be clear, I don't think it exist and also I don't think that it 
should exist.

> 
> Something ala Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
> 
> Which says things like:
> 
> "Assuming that we had a stable kernel source interface for the kernel,
> a binary interface would naturally happen too, right?  Wrong."
> 
> Which I read as a "no" to the kexec question too.
> 
> IOW, it is not about whether it works or not - it is about enforcing that.

Agreed.

-- 
Cheers

David