Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 6 May 2021 20:24:01 +0200
From:   Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Cfir Cohen <cfir@google.com>,
        Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@google.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Mike Stunes <mstunes@vmware.com>,
        Martin Radev <martin.b.radev@gmail.com>,
        Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kexec: Allow architecture code to opt-out at runtime
Message-ID: <YJQ0QdjdRwpMkIqU@suse.de>
References: <20210506093122.28607-1-joro@8bytes.org>
 <20210506093122.28607-2-joro@8bytes.org>
 <YJQOmxx1EMUqNpNn@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YJQOmxx1EMUqNpNn@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 03:43:23PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> This misses kexec_file_load.

Right, thanks, I will fix that in the next version.

> Also, is a new hook really needed?  E.g. the SEV-ES check be shoved
> into machine_kexec_prepare().  The downside is that we'd do a fair
> amount of work before detecting failure, but that doesn't seem hugely
> problematic.

That could work, but I think its more user-friendly to just claim that
the syscalls are not supported at all.

Regards,

	Joerg