linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
	dyoung@redhat.com, bhe@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com,
	will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] arm64: kexec_file_load support
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:58:15 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160704065814.GO20774@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3300473.zhbeG65qgA@hactar>

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 12:46:31PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Am Freitag, 01 Juli 2016, 14:11:12 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> > I'm not sure whether there is any demand for kexec_file_load
> > support on arm64, but anyhow I'm working on this and now
> > my early prototype code does work fine.
> 
> It is necessary if you want to support loading only signed kernels, and also 
> if you want IMA to measure the kernel in its event log.
> 
> > There is, however, one essential issue:
> > While arm64 kernel requires a device tree blob to be set up
> > correctly at boot time, the current system call API doesn't
> > have this parameter.
> >     int kexec_file_load(int kernel_fd, int initrd_fd,
> >                         unsigned long cmdline_len, const char
> > *cmdline_ptr, unsigned long flags);
> > 
> > Should we invent a new system call, like kexec_file_load2,
> > and, if so, what kind of interface would be desired?
> 
> I'm facing the same issue on powerpc. What I'm doing is taking the device 
> tree that was used to boot the current kernel and modifying it as necessary 
> to pass it to the next kernel.

That is exactly what I do.

> I agree that it would be better if we could have a system call where a 
> custom device tree could be passed. One suggestion is:

For powerpc, you might be able to use dtbImage instead of Image
without changing the kernel interfaces.
> 
> kexec_file_load2(int fds[], int fd_types[], int nr_fds,
> 		 unsigned long cmdline_len, const char *cmdline_ptr,
> 		unsigned long flags);

You don't want to simply add one more argument, i.e. dtb_fd, don't you.

I prefer a slightly-simpler interface:
        struct kexec_file_fd {
                enum kexec_file_type;
                int fd;
        }

        int kexec_file_load2(struct kexec_file_fd[], int nr_fds, int flags);

Or if you want to keep the compatibility with the existing system call,

        int kexec_file_load(int kernel_fd, int initrd_fd,
                        unsigned long cmdline_len, const char *cmdline_ptr,
                        unsigned long flags,
                        int struct kexec_file_fd[], int nr_fds);

Here SYSCALL_DEFINE7() have to be defined, and I'm not sure that we will not
have a problem in adding a system call with more than 6 arguments.

> Where fds is an array with nr_fds file descriptors and fd_types is an array 
> specifying what each fd in fds is. So for example, if fds[i] is the kernel, 
> then fd_types[i] would have the value KEXEC_FILE_KERNEL_FD. If fds[i] is the 
> device tree blob, fd_types[i], would have the value KEXEC_FILE_DTB and so 
> on. That way, the syscall can be extended for an arbitrary number and types 
> of segments that have to be loaded, just like kexec_load.
> 
> Another option is to have a struct:
> 
> kexec_file_load2(struct kexec_file_params *params, unsigned long params_sz);

Wow, we can add any number of new parameters with this interface.

Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI

> Where:
> 
> struct kexec_file_params {
> 	int version;	/* allows struct to be extended in the future */
> 	int fds[];
> 	int fd_types[];
> 	int nr_fds;
> 	unsigned long cmdline_len;
> 	const char *cmdline_ptr;
> 	unsigned long flags;
> };
> 
> This is even more flexible.
> 
> []'s
> Thiago Jung Bauermann
> IBM Linux Technology Center
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-04  6:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20160701051111.GL20774@linaro.org>
2016-07-01 15:46 ` [RFC] arm64: kexec_file_load support Thiago Jung Bauermann
2016-07-04  6:58   ` AKASHI Takahiro [this message]
2016-07-04 22:50     ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2016-07-05  8:07       ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-05  1:25     ` Dave Young
2016-07-05  8:03       ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-07  6:12         ` Dave Young
2016-07-08 14:48           ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2016-07-11  3:10             ` Dave Young
2016-07-11  7:19             ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-11  8:14               ` Dave Young

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=20160704065814.GO20774@linaro.org \
    --to=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
    --cc=bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).