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: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:07:23 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160705080722.GR20774@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5766907.oiVi8ABPsz@hactar>
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:50:19PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am Montag, 04 Juli 2016, 15:58:15 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 12:46:31PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> That works for custom kernels, but for signed kernels from a distro, I
> believe that's not an option.
>
> > > 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'm just trying to avoid having to add another argument later if we find out
> someone is loading another segment that we didn't know about. :-)
>
> The older kexec_load system call allows passing an arbitrary number of
> segments (sort of, currently capped at 16) to the kernel, so my suggestions
> preserve that feature.
>
> If people think that adding another argument for dtb_fd is enough, I won't
> mind.
That is the question :)
As far as I look though existing arch code, there will be no extra
parameters (segments) required other than dtb.
Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI
> > 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);
>
> I like this one.
>
> > 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.
>
> That's very clever. We can do what you suggest above or even just add dtb_fd
> with SYSCALL_DEFINE6. Either option would be good.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Yeah, maybe it's a bit too much.
>
> --
> []'s
> Thiago Jung Bauermann
> IBM Linux Technology Center
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-05 8:02 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
2016-07-04 22:50 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2016-07-05 8:07 ` AKASHI Takahiro [this message]
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=20160705080722.GR20774@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).