[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160715131950.GB19840@leverpostej>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:19:51 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>, bhe@...hat.com,
arnd@...db.de, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
dyoung@...hat.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] kexec: extend kexec_file_load system call
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 09:09:55AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:42:01AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>
> [..]
> > -SYSCALL_DEFINE5(kexec_file_load, int, kernel_fd, int, initrd_fd,
> > +SYSCALL_DEFINE6(kexec_file_load, int, kernel_fd, int, initrd_fd,
> > unsigned long, cmdline_len, const char __user *, cmdline_ptr,
> > - unsigned long, flags)
> > + unsigned long, flags, const struct kexec_fdset __user *, ufdset)
>
> Can one add more parameters to existing syscall. Can it break existing
> programs with new kernel? I was of the impression that one can't do that.
> But may be I am missing something.
I think the idea was that we would only look at the new params if a new
flags was set, and otherwise it would behave as the old syscall.
Regardless, I think it makes far more sense to add a kexec_file_load2
syscall if we're going to modify the prototype at all. It's a rather
different proposition to the existing syscall, and needs to be treated
as such.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists