From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zytor.com (terminus.zytor.com [198.137.202.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D16B7257821 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:21:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769466093; cv=none; b=ZBKEGE1HZli6YT58ZSU4BSS9S1u0PVZanZVE4ZhIY7FKe605OJnLeOW8i1xeIvUnZLMMp/ts1t8W5D10Ig1iZXkzpVFYEAywUyGOITA7bMAehI95UMhpQNJascLTdhRvSImWq6dQdnhAHvWualyRwqQhE6oVtLk8cHDwvdAQkz0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769466093; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XhISl/UhPWS3Ctz6+y84f9vMqMqt37/WqXUUnAS6v3o=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=G71l11Aj59cK34kuKkLejuVs7Xo4mryHmkbUfzZyvbPqOF7HhG1SsMcA0uBsSKIJ2cU6Mm7nmULz7STyGGsJOCQ3qwyV7b+VPEF64Y0PEds8cZnC+sPIfCplx0Rgyh3SzWCVm9M8oKp28sRJXXVe2X4XJZwLVzej31vzYKYYneE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b=WKZt0jDi; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b="WKZt0jDi" Received: from [172.27.2.41] (c-76-133-66-138.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.133.66.138]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zytor.com (8.18.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 60QMKoI83292772 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Jan 2026 14:20:54 -0800 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.zytor.com 60QMKoI83292772 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zytor.com; s=2026012301; t=1769466055; bh=Y5LE/jnbYZFyYkn+TSQ3sThKKbKQqID7J/IB+1WanBw=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=WKZt0jDiGX+kvf/T0QnGrEMcpoiak1IfJj5GGW3Lu6UREk0LlSKmKtUtRJ+d/Ymbj /8F9/l8LANANp2N48YWqK6V9aE2VrzV1NHuVTv6oHRVPyyYz2ojIzWElyWv7MFiw5e BQn2PQhM/eUqwFV9AqEXP8+hDftVYRNdHD1Ph3jZtqf9/963a8ylXcsw6fFiNadu05 aqODrIckO1/y8R7Vv1N2PxnpxyeGbIW/d2XUqin0Gaz0zv730PSlRGSEfgnPPfBQf+ WFO1zIBrRPPgvgHs4n6/YTo5cT2ftJ0xjuUHBZ9WG6TlKXN3yqLVfJIsso6jEisNI/ SpkH6kryTTN0w== Message-ID: <643bfc24-8cc1-4f70-85e2-f6829c8e03db@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 14:20:44 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 08/14] x86: make CONFIG_EFI_STUB unconditional To: Simon Glass Cc: ubizjak@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, kas@kernel.org, kees@kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, mingo@redhat.com, nathan@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, pmladek@suse.com, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, tglx@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org References: <20260122185740.50298-1-sjg@chromium.org> <90DAAB54-CBF0-47BD-981A-FEDD26CDA0FD@zytor.com> Content-Language: en-US, sv-SE From: "H. Peter Anvin" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2026-01-26 13:19, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Including the EFI stub doesn't mean using EFI to boot is required. > > Yes, understood, but it adds bloat. More importantly it will lead to > people assuming that the stub is always used and thus unwittingly blur > the boundary between the stub and the kernel itself. > > What is the actual need for this? > I would argue that the opposite is more likely: someone inadvertently builds a kernel without the stub, the bootloader goes down a legacy support path and things seems to work... except for some platform subtleties. The bloat is there, but it is small and is only in the on-disk kernel image; it is zero at runtime. As such, I don't think this option is a particularly good idea anymore. If necessary, it could be hidden behind an EXPERT option, but I first wanted to see who if anyone actually cares in a meaningful way to maintain this option. Every option, after all, adds maintenance burden. Note that the BIOS stub is unconditionally compiled and included, and that has not been an issue. -hpa