From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F477E6FE55 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:27:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:References:To:From:Subject: Cc:Message-Id:Date:Mime-Version:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=Lxslj59CZ8S5VC0/ntZX3xGaWYlmI8A48NzQaKVWSu8=; b=vJ8DqWxRNyaCrL kC95ktHUF8aXXu5JagRKsUFfcvAp/iujMyF6zbJiJpu8HzR6S5r4YK7z6NYVExr4qlYKLzGMGOKoL EtszdVXUGM5GJwc5MO3FgYad3Ea0vOXt7GpTMd+doWN10E7GbrcnF4eBShhf1uku6UYnVCCaG6Htl P+rHfaRS28h2fHfdr9FXa2GdHnad+Rpc4O3yRCFiWEbLKrbjp3Cc2fxXzDdU1md8ciUjPocsZ+Ci6 4qtChmuDUFFX/rOWutpcSBaxXphZ6fj/41joX2GkzAH2Kln9EQ2/YbWHNYFT1H+8ENDWnxpmiquB8 0O9mJ+UD449uo7rUghaA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1smtbF-0000000Eusq-1QQy; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 11:27:29 +0000 Received: from nyc.source.kernel.org ([147.75.193.91]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1smtbB-0000000Eurd-0gWu for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 11:27:26 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by nyc.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A58A40201; Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:27:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62A9DC4CEC2; Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:27:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1725708443; bh=DzlgCZvoAslqJIa9rfeEGQCc5NjF7zvlXCe6WoEoX7I=; h=Date:Cc:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=RBWcyKFZe/9mOh4BaocbZV1L/fwv2mg/sbQWsUMfPaK8pCqrsjbDfX4iRVV1T69zh PTDY+O3fp00QR8UNjCq6pPT0w3UjUBvLOTUF+8iO4dFu2zdraTQli68wfSOHL4D7xF BZt445JRlAGbbnd6znNMZmF/XGFj3lMEKbNnnUvLOVOK6sGfpVjx0iLAvh279I2wqQ hSuzSRj4CcTMoSONY7fVDlMo3bFYaLBDz6fes8sULlD9l1n+CZzrb3KqOdhA1UZ1el osJbkjs6RfaTR1jOGl6IYOusIPlEs69Pp7wrcq2rNie/x1qL6JzEXuvC2s2FCYZjjj fiLrmYhXP+m9A== Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 14:27:20 +0300 Message-Id: Cc: "Pingfan Liu" , "Jan Hendrik Farr" , "Lennart Poettering" , "Eric Biederman" , "Baoquan He" , "Dave Young" , "Mark Rutland" , "Will Deacon" , "Catalin Marinas" , , , Subject: Re: [RFCv2 0/9] UEFI emulator for kexec From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" To: "Philipp Rudo" , "Ard Biesheuvel" X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2 References: <20240819145417.23367-1-piliu@redhat.com> <20240906125438.1e54c5f6@rotkaeppchen> In-Reply-To: <20240906125438.1e54c5f6@rotkaeppchen> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240907_042725_291225_8C3D458D X-CRM114-Status: UNSURE ( 5.89 ) X-CRM114-Notice: Please train this message. X-BeenThere: kexec@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list 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+kexec=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri Sep 6, 2024 at 1:54 PM EEST, Philipp Rudo wrote: > Let me throw an other wild idea in the ring. Instead of implementing > a EFI runtime we could also include a eBPF version of the stub into the > images. kexec could then extract the eBPF program and let it run just > like any other eBPF program with all the pros (and cons) that come with > it. That won't be as generic as the EFI runtime, e.g. you couldn't > simply kexec any OS installer. On the other hand it would make it > easier to port UKIs et al. to non-EFI systems. What do you think? BPF would have some guarantees that are favorable such as programs always end, even faulty ones. It always has implicit "ExitBootServices". Just a remark. BR, Jarkko _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec