linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory hotplug

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: <20251201191036.GEaS3oLBY8PEuE91Ap@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 20:10:36 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
Cc: Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@...nel.org>, "Pratik R. Sampat" <prsampat@....com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, ardb@...nel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, osalvador@...e.de,
	thomas.lendacky@....com, michael.roth@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory hotplug

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 07:32:38PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> I think we are in agreement: from what I recall, this software contract used to be
> rather simple and stable.

Ok, please point me to the *explicit* document in our tree which says: "we
won't break the kernel and support kexec with any kernel version"?

Something ala Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst

Which says things like:

"Assuming that we had a stable kernel source interface for the kernel,
a binary interface would naturally happen too, right?  Wrong."

Which I read as a "no" to the kexec question too.

IOW, it is not about whether it works or not - it is about enforcing that.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette