All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	dyoung@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Revert "x86/kexec/64: Prevent kexec from 5-level paging to a 4-level only kernel"
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 12:02:01 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZefquYIOFlCULYI/@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240305115533.GBZecINWGlb73W0nQS@fat_crate.local>

On 03/05/24 at 12:55pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 11:43:01AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
......
> 
> > If we take off the checking, and people want to jump from the new kernel
> > to an old kernel where 5-level kernel code haven't been added or
> > CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL is unset on purpose, it won't fail and prompt message at
> > all until 2nd kernel booting silently failed. E.g, the coming RHEL10 anchor
> > a upstream kernel w/o the flag checking, people want to kexec/kdump jump
> > from rhel10 to an old rhel7 kernel. It could be an extreme case, while
> > revealing the scenario.
> 
> That is the only valid reason you've given until now. Yes, that makes
> sense - the removal of those flags should go together with the removal
> of CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL and making this feature unconditional.

Please forgive my awful expression.

> 
> Because, practically, that config item is enabled on every relevant
> x86 kernel config out there. It would be silly if not.

I agree. Thanks for looking into this.


  reply	other threads:[~2024-03-06  4:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-01 18:56 [RFC PATCH 0/2] x86/kexec: Revert 5level dynamic switching Borislav Petkov
2024-03-01 18:56 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] Revert "x86/kexec/64: Prevent kexec from 5-level paging to a 4-level only kernel" Borislav Petkov
2024-03-04 10:51   ` Baoquan He
2024-03-04 11:11     ` Borislav Petkov
2024-03-05  3:43       ` Baoquan He
2024-03-05 11:55         ` Borislav Petkov
2024-03-06  4:02           ` Baoquan He [this message]
2024-03-01 18:56 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] Revert "x86/boot: Add xloadflags bits to check for 5-level paging support" Borislav Petkov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ZefquYIOFlCULYI/@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \
    --to=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.