Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] kexec_file: Generalize kexec_add_buffer.

On 06/15/16 at 01:21pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > Hello Dave, > > Am Mittwoch, 15 Juni 2016, 15:33:02 schrieb Dave Young: > > > @@ -472,14 +498,16 @@ int kexec_add_buffer(struct kimage *image, char > > > *buffer, unsigned long bufsz,> > > > kbuf->top_down = top_down; > > > > > > /*

Re: kexec failures with DEBUG_RODATA

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:54:38PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > In fact, the apparent confusion over this reinforces my belief that we > > should _not_ give the size of the uncompressed image at all. > > >

Re: kexec failures with DEBUG_RODATA

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > In fact, the apparent confusion over this reinforces my belief that we > should _not_ give the size of the uncompressed image at all. > > The boot environment must be setup such that there is room for the >

Re: kexec failures with DEBUG_RODATA

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:05:23AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> I'm much less familiar with the ARM decompression stub, but is there a >> boot image header (like x86 has)? If not, perhaps we can invent one, >>

Re: kexec failures with DEBUG_RODATA

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:05:23AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > I'm much less familiar with the ARM decompression stub, but is there a > boot image header (like x86 has)? If not, perhaps we can invent one, > and it can carry all the details needed for a bootloader to do the > right things. With a

Re: kexec failures with DEBUG_RODATA

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:25:08PM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote: > Sure, having a header information would be handy to do it. Other alternative > could be that we define "HAVE_LIBZ" and then we can have something like > kexec-Image-arm.c which handles plane Image. We can also have something like >

Re: [PATCH v18 04/13] arm64/kexec: Add pr_debug output

Hi Geoff, On 09/06/16 21:08, Geoff Levand wrote: > To aid in debugging kexec problems or when adding new functionality to kexec > add > a new routine kexec_image_info() and several inline pr_debug statements. > > Signed-off-by: Geoff Levand > --- >

Re: [PATCH v18 03/13] arm64/kexec: Add core kexec support

Hi Geoff, Looks good, I have a few observations and questions below. On 09/06/16 21:08, Geoff Levand wrote: > Add three new files, kexec.h, machine_kexec.c and relocate_kernel.S to the > arm64 architecture that add support for the kexec re-boot mechanism > (CONFIG_KEXEC) on arm64 platforms. > >

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] kexec_file: Generalize kexec_add_buffer.

Hello Dave, Am Mittwoch, 15 Juni 2016, 15:33:02 schrieb Dave Young: > > @@ -472,14 +498,16 @@ int kexec_add_buffer(struct kimage *image, char > > *buffer, unsigned long bufsz,> > > kbuf->top_down = top_down; > > > > /* Walk the RAM ranges and allocate a suitable range for the buffer

Re: [PATCH v18 03/13] arm64/kexec: Add core kexec support

Geoff, On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:08:44PM +, Geoff Levand wrote: > Add three new files, kexec.h, machine_kexec.c and relocate_kernel.S to the > arm64 architecture that add support for the kexec re-boot mechanism > (CONFIG_KEXEC) on arm64 platforms. > > Signed-off-by: Geoff Levand

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] kexec_file: Generalize kexec_add_buffer.

Hi, Thiago On 06/14/16 at 11:59am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > Allow architectures to specify different memory walking functions for > kexec_add_buffer. Intel uses iomem to track reserved memory ranges, > but PowerPC uses the memblock subsystem. > > Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann