[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <290c0097271c68f5a9fd1e8f6fdb542631981b33.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:10:10 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Philipp Rudo <prudo@...hat.com>
Cc: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>,
Nayna <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Frank van der Linden <fllinden@...zon.com>,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>,
Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>, buendgen@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KEXEC_SIG with appended signature
On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 12:09 +0100, Philipp Rudo wrote:
> Now Michal wants to adapt KEXEC_SIG for ppc too so distros can rely on all
> architectures using the same mechanism and thus reduce maintenance cost.
> On the way there he even makes some absolutely reasonable improvements
> for everybody.
>
> Why is that so controversial? What is the real problem that should be
> discussed here?
Nothing is controversial with what Michal wants to do. I've already
said, "As for adding KEXEC_SIG appended signature support on PowerPC
based on the s390 code, it sounds reasonable."
thanks,
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists