Re: [Xen-devel] kexec: Clearing registers just before jumping into purgatory

[Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 01:44:19PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > No, I manually look up some addresses from /proc/kallsyms and then 
> > modify them in the second kernel.
> 
> An interesting approach I think most of the rest of us would have just
> built a module, or rebuilt our kernels.

Well yeah, but my kernel refuses to load unsigned modules, so.

> Now if this is a backwards argument to remove that silly code path it
> totally fails because now we know the code has not bit-rotted and
> that there are active users.

No, it's not any argument of the kind.

> If you are still pushing the signed-boot agenda I eagerly await your
> patches to make all of this work in a sensible way with signed binaries.

Vivek's working on a separate kexec system call for that, as we agreed 
with Linus at LPC.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel