On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 05:34:03 -0800 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com> writes: > >> There is also a huge missing piece of this in that your purgatory is not > >> checking a hash of the loaded image before jumping too it. Without that > >> this is a huge regression at least for the kexec on panic case. We > >> absolutely need to check that the kernel sitting around in memory has > >> not been corrupted before we let it run very far. > > > > Agreed. This should not be hard. It is just a matter of calcualting > > digest of segments. I will store it in kimge and verify digest again > > before passing control to control page. Will fix it in next version. > > Nak. The verification needs to happen in purgatory. > > The verification needs to happen in code whose runtime environment is > does not depend on random parts of the kernel. Anything else is a > regression in maintainability and reliability. Hello Vivek, Just to be sure that you have not forgotten the following s390 detail: On s390 we first call purgatory with parameter "0" for doing the checksum test. If this fails, we can have as backup solution our traditional stand-alone dump. In case tha checksum test was ok, we call purgatory a second time with parameter "1" which then starts kdump. Could you please ensure that this mechanism also works after your rework. Best Regards, Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
