Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3B0C4321E for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:57:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239050AbhLIPBX (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Dec 2021 10:01:23 -0500 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.220.28]:54906 "EHLO smtp-out1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230312AbhLIPBW (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Dec 2021 10:01:22 -0500 Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB09210FF; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:57:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1639061867; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=B7f6qRahiw5jhS0ShhXv7YNAlwGFAuEPvz02wcswTDY=; b=gPgeGBOqAj1w2/IfiYiUJZQKOR5J82A1Jcgx9IB9Lg4xy6yn6SJ5BFAlgLdbOLu1hHG7vE 0panrH92CgFnCxooEeYXPRniRiGQzT2/9Wq8WzmBRRrKzV/iXa5gM6ei/5FlPbBPij83bp vqSVzkoMk5Lf/ek96wOP4gFIEnDAhro= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1639061867; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=B7f6qRahiw5jhS0ShhXv7YNAlwGFAuEPvz02wcswTDY=; b=ifKqt7859hHQVpcEXofA567hptOij+KjdqlWOciBCOlO/gkAk2kGLrViK2ee2A72WKzrh7 l33DkpGEwGJL82CQ== Received: from kunlun.suse.cz (unknown [10.100.128.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44CA3A3B95; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:57:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 15:57:44 +0100 From: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Such=E1nek?= To: Nayna Cc: keyrings@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, Philipp Rudo , Mimi Zohar , Rob Herring , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Vasily Gorbik , Lakshmi Ramasubramanian , Heiko Carstens , Jessica Yu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Christian Borntraeger , Luis Chamberlain , Paul Mackerras , Hari Bathini , Alexander Gordeev , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Frank van der Linden , Thiago Jung Bauermann , Daniel Axtens , buendgen@de.ibm.com, Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Christian Borntraeger , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Dmitry Kasatkin , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Sven Schnelle , Baoquan He , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] KEXEC_SIG with appended signature Message-ID: <20211209145744.GQ117207@kunlun.suse.cz> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 08:50:54PM -0500, Nayna wrote: > > On 11/25/21 13:02, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > Hello, > > Hi Michael, > > > > > This is resend of the KEXEC_SIG patchset. > > > > The first patch is new because it'a a cleanup that does not require any > > change to the module verification code. > > > > The second patch is the only one that is intended to change any > > functionality. > > > > The rest only deduplicates code but I did not receive any review on that > > part so I don't know if it's desirable as implemented. > > > > The first two patches can be applied separately without the rest. > > Patch 2 fails to apply on v5.16-rc4. Can you please also include git > tree/branch while posting the patches ? Sorry, I did not have a clean base and the Kconfig had another change. Here is a tree with the changes applied: https://github.com/hramrach/kernel/tree/kexec_sig > > Secondly, I see that you add the powerpc support in Patch 2 and then modify > it again in Patch 5 after cleanup. Why not add the support for powerpc after > the clean up ? This will reduce some rework and also probably simplify > patches. That's because I don't know if the later patches will be accepted. By queueing this patch first it can be applied standalone to ppc tree without regard for the other patches. It's a copy of the s390 code so it needs the same rework - not really adding complexity. Thanks Michal