Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-32141-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAK7LNARX==sMKVTGXutGMmMkfg1idGUYLhBLZvKZ0psdwmiUvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240118141246.370272-1-jtornosm@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240118141246.370272-1-jtornosm@redhat.com>
From: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 02:33:53 +0900
Message-ID: <CAK7LNARNgp_oYWf69tw4+y0SMp=Hi2rixAt5h8R5=GaMkQLQYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] rpm-pkg: avoid install/remove the running kernel
To: Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez <jtornosm@redhat.com>
Cc: dcavalca@meta.com, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com, 
	nicolas@fjasle.eu, stable@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:12=E2=80=AFPM Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez
<jtornosm@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > What is the problem with this?
> In my opinion, it is risky to remove the kernel that is running, that is
> the reason why I am trying to protect this.
> If you try to remove or update (and the running kernel is removed), if th=
e
> kernel and modules are already preloaded in memory, it could not happen
> anything but some extra action could be necessary or automatically starte=
d,
> and even the new kernel could not boot.
> Fedora and others are taking this into account with upper tools and decla=
re
> the running kernel as protected avoinding this action. But others
> (i.e. openSUSE Tumbleweed) allow this behavior.


As I replied in 1/2, I see an error like this:


vagrant@opensuse-tumbleweed20231218:~> sudo rpm -i
kernel-6.7.0_12924_g660a5f4a53e7-4.x86_64.rpm
file /lib/modules/6.7.0-12924-g660a5f4a53e7/vmlinuz from install of
kernel-6.7.0_12924_g660a5f4a53e7-4.x86_64 conflicts with file from
package kernel-6.7.0_12924_g660a5f4a53e7-3.x86_64


You can proceed with 'rpm -i --force', but
that is the user's responsibility if something bad happens.


> It may only be a safety measure but it can also be beneficial to avoid
> problems, just in case.
> Besides, in this way, all the tested distributions would have the same
> behavior.
>
> If it is ok, I will create a following version patch describing the probl=
em
> better and using indentation as you suggested for the other patch.


No, not OK.


>
> Thanks
>
> Best regards
> Jos=C3=A9 Ignacio
>

--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada