From: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>
To: Mukesh Pilaniya <mpilaniy@redhat.com>
Cc: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>,
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 11:44:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2vxzbjaz2269.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9cbe111c-ff63-4f24-b518-094ddd7cea30@redhat.com> (Mukesh Pilaniya's message of "Fri, 14 Aug 2026 22:57:36 +0530")
On Fri, Aug 14 2026, Mukesh Pilaniya wrote:
> 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.
Okay, the idea makes sense. Though I am curious if in practice there are
images that kexec_file_load() can't load but kexec-tools can.
But then I went and looked at the code. The only caller of the probe
functions I can see is kexec_image_probe_default(). Looking at its code:
int kexec_image_probe_default(struct kimage *image, void *buf,
unsigned long buf_len)
{
const struct kexec_file_ops * const *fops;
int ret = -ENOEXEC;
for (fops = &kexec_file_loaders[0]; *fops && (*fops)->probe; ++fops) {
ret = (*fops)->probe(buf, buf_len);
if (!ret) {
image->fops = *fops;
return ret;
}
}
return ret;
}
It defaults ret to -ENOEXEC, which makes sense, but then lets it be
over-written by each loader. So in practice, it returns what the _last_
loader returned. _This_ makes no sense. Why should the last loader be
any special?
From reading the code, I think what the author of this wanted to do is
to try all loaders, and return -ENOEXEC if none succeeded. But the code
of course strays from that and ends up returning the last loader's
value.
So how about the below diff instead? (** only compile tested **)
--- 8< ---
diff --git a/kernel/kexec_file.c b/kernel/kexec_file.c
index 2bfbb2d144e6..cfb2b8cd5679 100644
--- a/kernel/kexec_file.c
+++ b/kernel/kexec_file.c
@@ -67,17 +67,16 @@ int kexec_image_probe_default(struct kimage *image, void *buf,
unsigned long buf_len)
{
const struct kexec_file_ops * const *fops;
- int ret = -ENOEXEC;
for (fops = &kexec_file_loaders[0]; *fops && (*fops)->probe; ++fops) {
- ret = (*fops)->probe(buf, buf_len);
- if (!ret) {
+ if (!(*fops)->probe(buf, buf_len)) {
image->fops = *fops;
- return ret;
+ return 0;
}
}
- return ret;
+ /* No loader found. */
+ return -ENOEXEC;
}
static void *kexec_image_load_default(struct kimage *image)
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-18 9:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ 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
2026-08-18 9:44 ` Pratyush Yadav [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=2vxzbjaz2269.fsf@kernel.org \
--to=pratyush@kernel.org \
--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=mpilaniy@redhat.com \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=pjw@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