From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lRRqq-005QEp-3G for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 03:49:08 +0000 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:48:51 +0800 From: Baoquan He Subject: Re: kexec does not work for kernel version with patch level >= 256 Message-ID: <20210331034851.GH13786@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> References: <20210331024745.GB29970@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Patrick Sung Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, dyoung@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, horms@verge.net.au On 03/31/21 at 11:04am, Patrick Sung wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:47 AM Baoquan He wrote: > > > > On 03/24/21 at 12:28pm, Patrick Sung wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I am using the 4.9 long term kernel which is currently at 4.9.262. > > > When using this kernel with kexec-tools it prints out this error > > > > > > Unsupported utsname.release: 4.9.262 > > > Cannot load > > > > > > A quick search in the code shows that kexec/kernel_version.c doing this check: > > > > > > if (major >= 256 || minor >= 256 || patch >= 256) { > > > > > > and also in kexec/kexec.h > > > #define KERNEL_VERSION(major, minor, patch) \ > > > (((major) << 16) | ((minor) << 8) | patch) > > > > Yeah, this seems to be a good catch. The existing longterm kenrel 4.9.262 > > does cause the problem. I am not very sure about the longterm kernel > > version numbering, maybe we can leave 16 bits for for patch number to > > avoid the longterm kernel issue? > > > > Is there document telling the longterm kernel version numbering, or any > > pointer? > > > Actually I found that the mainline kernel clamp the "patch" version to 255 > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/Makefile?id=9b82f13e7ef316cdc0a8858f1349f4defce3f9e0 Yeah, mainline kernel use below formula to construct kernel version. Seems longterm kernel takes a different way. While it's understandable that Longterm kernel using a larger patch number since it will evolve evolve for a longer time to get in bug fixes. Maybe we should enlarge patch number to 16 bits? echo '#define KERNEL_VERSION(a,b,c) (((a) << 16) + ((b) << 8) + \ ((c) > 255 ? 255 : (c)))'; By the way, it calls 'a' version number, 'b' patch level, 'c' sub-level in Makefile of kernel? > > > Thanks > > Baoquan > > > > > > > > which explains the reason for the range check in kernel_version.c > > > > > > Increasing the number of bits allowed in "patch" seems to fix the issue. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Patrick > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > kexec mailing list > > > kexec@lists.infradead.org > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec > > > > > > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec