linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] x86/kexec: UKI support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1c342231-7672-450e-b945-e57cd17b4ae7@app.fastmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 22:49:00 +0200
From:   "Jan Hendrik Farr" <kernel@...rr.cc>
To:     "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     kexec@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        dhowells@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "Baoquan He" <bhe@...hat.com>,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com, lennart@...ttering.net,
        "Luca Boccassi" <bluca@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] x86/kexec: UKI support


> These are sort of "tautological" arguments. There must be some
> objective reasons why this architecture was chosen instead of
> other (i.e. using what already pre-exists).

I think I misunderstood you in my earlier reply. I do not understand in what way you think my arguments are tautological. Can you elaborate?