On Mon Sep 18, 2023 at 6:41 PM EEST, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 11:38, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >
> > On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 2:20 AM EEST, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11,
> > 2023 at 7:15 PM Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Sat Sep 9, 2023 at 7:18 PM EEST, Jan
On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 11:38, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 2:20 AM EEST, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023
> at 7:15 PM Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Sat Sep 9, 2023 at 7:18 PM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > this patch implements UKI
On Thu Sep 14, 2023 at 12:11 PM EEST, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mi, 13.09.23 17:45, Jarkko Sakkinen (jar...@kernel.org) wrote:
>
> > On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 11:49 PM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
> > >
> > > > These are sort of "tautological" arguments. There must be some
> > > > objective
On Thu Sep 14, 2023 at 11:48 AM EEST, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Di, 12.09.23 17:32, Jan Hendrik Farr (ker...@jfarr.cc) wrote:
>
> > >> The format itself is rather simple. It's just a PE file (as required
> > >> by the UEFI spec) that contains a small stub application in the .text,
> > >>
On Mi, 13.09.23 17:45, Jarkko Sakkinen (jar...@kernel.org) wrote:
> On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 11:49 PM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
> >
> > > These are sort of "tautological" arguments. There must be some
> > > objective reasons why this architecture was chosen instead of
> > > other (i.e. using
On Di, 12.09.23 17:32, Jan Hendrik Farr (ker...@jfarr.cc) wrote:
> >> The format itself is rather simple. It's just a PE file (as required
> >> by the UEFI spec) that contains a small stub application in the .text,
> >> .data, etc sections that is responsible for invoking the contained
> >>
On Wed Sep 13, 2023 at 6:07 PM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, at 4:45 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 11:49 PM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
> >>
> >> > These are sort of "tautological" arguments. There must be some
> >> > objective reasons why this
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, at 4:45 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 11:49 PM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
>>
>> > 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
On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 11:49 PM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
>
> > 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.
> 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
> 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).
You mean like your argument that the same can already be achieved with the
normal EFI stub and builin initrd/cmdline? ;)
On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 9:56 PM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
> > What sort of bottleneck does the EFI stub have so that we need yet
> > another envelope?
>
> Well I can come up with a few advantages of UKI compared to normal bzImage
> with builtin initrd and cmdline.
>
> 1. You already identified
> What sort of bottleneck does the EFI stub have so that we need yet
> another envelope?
Well I can come up with a few advantages of UKI compared to normal bzImage with
builtin initrd and cmdline.
1. You already identified this one. Using addons to adjust your cmdline
2. I can use my normal
On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 6:32 PM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
> >> The format itself is rather simple. It's just a PE file (as required
> >> by the UEFI spec) that contains a small stub application in the .text,
> >> .data, etc sections that is responsible for invoking the contained
> >> kernel and
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023, at 12:33 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 1:54 AM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
>> > What the heck is UKI?
>>
>> UKI (Unified Kernel Image) is the kernel image + initrd + cmdline (+
>> some other optional stuff) all packaged up together as one EFI
>>
On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 2:20 AM EEST, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023
at 7:15 PM Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sat Sep 9, 2023 at 7:18 PM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > this patch implements UKI support for kexec_file_load. It will require
> > > support
> > > in
On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 1:54 AM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
> > What the heck is UKI?
>
> UKI (Unified Kernel Image) is the kernel image + initrd + cmdline (+
> some other optional stuff) all packaged up together as one EFI
> application.
>
> This EFI application can then be launched directly by
On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 7:15 PM Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> On Sat Sep 9, 2023 at 7:18 PM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > this patch implements UKI support for kexec_file_load. It will require
> > support
> > in the kexec-tools userspace utility. For testing purposes the
> What the heck is UKI?
UKI (Unified Kernel Image) is the kernel image + initrd + cmdline (+ some other
optional stuff) all packaged up together as one EFI application.
This EFI application can then be launched directly by the UEFI without the need
for any additional stuff (or by
On Sat Sep 9, 2023 at 7:18 PM EEST, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this patch implements UKI support for kexec_file_load. It will require support
> in the kexec-tools userspace utility. For testing purposes the following can
> be used:
> https://github.com/Cydox/kexec-test/
>
> There has
>> > - the dtb section also is optional but supported, and given kexec
>> > supports loading a new dtb I think this change should support it too
>> > immediately. Moreover, we are adding support for multiple DTBs in a
>> > single UKI (by simply having multiple .dtb sections, and picking the
>> >
On Sat, 9 Sept 2023 at 18:58, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
>
> > - the cmdline section is actually optional, just like it's optional to
> > pass it on a traditional kexec load, so it should be used if present,
> > but skipped if not
>
> Should be an easy fix.
>
> This should be updated in the UKI
> - the cmdline section is actually optional, just like it's optional to
> pass it on a traditional kexec load, so it should be used if present,
> but skipped if not
Should be an easy fix.
This should be updated in the UKI documentation as for other optional sections
it's explicitly marked. I
On Sat, 9 Sept 2023 at 17:19, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> this patch implements UKI support for kexec_file_load. It will require support
> in the kexec-tools userspace utility. For testing purposes the following can
> be used:
> https://github.com/Cydox/kexec-test/
>
> There has been
Hello,
this patch implements UKI support for kexec_file_load. It will require support
in the kexec-tools userspace utility. For testing purposes the following can be
used:
https://github.com/Cydox/kexec-test/
There has been discussion on this topic in an issue on GitHub that is linked
below
25 matches
Mail list logo
