From: Mukesh Pilaniya <mpilaniy@redhat.com>
To: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
WANG Xuerui <kernel@xen0n.name>, Paul Walmsley <pjw@kernel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Baoquan He <baoquan.he@linux.dev>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Tao Liu <ltao@redhat.com>, Philipp Rudo <prudo@redhat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: return -ENOEXEC from image probe functions on mismatch
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 22:57:36 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9cbe111c-ff63-4f24-b518-094ddd7cea30@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2vxzv79c23j6.fsf@kernel.org>
Hi Pratyush,
On 14/08/26 7:43 pm, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13 2026, Mukesh Pilaniya wrote:
>
>> Several kexec_file_load() image probe functions return -EINVAL when
>> they do not recognize the image format. A probe function that rejects
>> an image should return -ENOEXEC to indicate that the image is not a
>> recognized executable format. -EINVAL implies a problem with the
>> syscall parameters, not with image recognition.
>>
>> kexec_image_probe_default() iterates through registered loaders and
>> returns the last probe's error code to the caller. That error
>> propagates as the kexec_file_load() return value to userspace.
>> Returning -EINVAL from a probe when no loader matches is semantically
>> incorrect and misleads userspace about the nature of the failure.
>>
>> Return -ENOEXEC from all probe functions and their helpers when the
>> image format is not recognized.
>
> Sounds fine in principle but can you please also share what the real
> problem you face is and how changing these return codes helps? These
> error codes are uAPI and while we _can_ change them as long as we don't
> break something, there should be a clear motivation for doing so.
>
> [...]
>
While debugging a misleading error on s390x where kexec -s reported
"syscall kexec_file_load not available" instead of the actual EINVAL
from a kernel command line that exceeded the architecture limit, we
traced the problem to the kexec-tools userspace utility treating
EINVAL the same as ENOSYS and ENOEXEC -- as a signal to silently fall
back to kexec_load().
kexec-tools supports two syscalls: kexec_file_load() and the older
kexec_load(). With -a (the default), it tries kexec_file_load()
first and falls back to kexec_load() when the syscall is not
implemented (ENOSYS) or the kernel does not have a loader for the
image format. With -s, it uses kexec_file_load() only with no
fallback.
When the kernel returns -EINVAL it means something went wrong while
loading the image, not that the syscall is missing or the image
format is unrecognized. kexec-tools should not fall back to the
older syscall in that case. However, some kernel probe functions
currently return -EINVAL when the image header does not match,
instead of returning -ENOEXEC. Keeping EINVAL in the fallback set
to accommodate these probes has the side effect of also hiding
genuine loading errors like an oversized command line.
kexec-tools should only fall back when kexec_file_load() is not
implemented or does not have a matching loader -- not when something
goes wrong during load.
The fix on the kexec-tools side is to remove EINVAL from the fallback
set, but that requires the kernel to be clean first -- probe functions
must return -ENOEXEC when they do not recognize an image format, not -EINVAL.
kexec-tools patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260814075329.30203-1-mpilaniy@redhat.com/
A review of all kexec_file_ops.probe implementations found that arm64
image_probe(), riscv image_probe(), and loongarch efi_kexec_probe()
return -EINVAL where they should return -ENOEXEC. x86 bzImage64_probe()
and s390 s390_elf_probe() already use -ENOEXEC correctly.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-14 17:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-13 7:06 [PATCH] kexec: return -ENOEXEC from image probe functions on mismatch Mukesh Pilaniya
2026-08-13 13:13 ` Philipp Rudo
2026-08-14 7:59 ` Mukesh Pilaniya
2026-08-14 14:13 ` Pratyush Yadav
2026-08-14 17:27 ` Mukesh Pilaniya [this message]
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=9cbe111c-ff63-4f24-b518-094ddd7cea30@redhat.com \
--to=mpilaniy@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex@ghiti.fr \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=baoquan.he@linux.dev \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel@xen0n.name \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=ltao@redhat.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=pjw@kernel.org \
--cc=pratyush@kernel.org \
--cc=prudo@redhat.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=will@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox