Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 18 Apr 2022 09:40:36 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To:     Coiby Xu <coxu@redhat.com>
Cc:     kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@suse.de>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, Chun-Yi Lee <jlee@suse.com>,
        stable@kernel.org, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] kexec: clean up arch_kexec_kernel_verify_sig
Message-ID: <YlzBlPWXWeg6ABen@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20220414014344.228523-1-coxu@redhat.com>
 <20220414014344.228523-2-coxu@redhat.com>
 <YleYmZAAnF5aOan3@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <20220415093735.74eusyuuboa32aqs@Rk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220415093735.74eusyuuboa32aqs@Rk>
Precedence: bulk

On 04/15/22 at 05:37pm, Coiby Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 11:44:25AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 04/14/22 at 09:43am, Coiby Xu wrote:
> > > Currently there is no arch-specific implementation of
> > > arch_kexec_kernel_verify_sig. Even if we want to add an implementation
> > > for an architecture in the future, we can simply use "(struct
> > > kexec_file_ops*)->verify_sig". So clean it up.
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> > > Cc: stable@kernel.org
> > 
> > It should be not worth noticing stable kernel that a clean up patch need
> > be back ported.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion! For the 2nd and 3rd patch, I'll add prerequisite
> info,
> 
> Cc: stable@kernel.org # 34d5960af253: kexec: clean up arch_kexec_kernel_verify_sig
> 
> and
> 
> Cc: stable@kernel.org # 34d5960af253: kexec: clean up arch_kexec_kernel_verify_sig
> Cc: stable@kernel.org # 83b7bb2d49ae: kexec, KEYS: make the code in bzImage64_verify_sig generic
> 
> respectively.

That sounds good, thx.