Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:56:55 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] x86/kexec: refactor for kernel/Kconfig.kexec | From | Eric DeVolder <> |
| |
On 6/20/23 03:21, Baoquan He wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On 06/19/23 at 10:57am, Eric DeVolder wrote: > ...... >> +config ARCH_SUPPORTS_KEXEC >> + def_bool y >> >> -config ARCH_HAS_KEXEC_PURGATORY >> - def_bool KEXEC_FILE >> +config ARCH_SUPPORTS_KEXEC_FILE >> + def_bool X86_64 && CRYPTO && CRYPTO_SHA256 > ...... >> +config ARCH_SELECTS_KEXEC_FILE >> + def_bool y >> depends on KEXEC_FILE >> - help > > I am a little confused about this ARCH_SELECTS_XX adding. Wondering what > limits us defining the ARCH_SUPPORTS_KEXEC_FILE like below? I have limited > knowledge about Kconfig, please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks in > advance. > > +config ARCH_SUPPORTS_KEXEC_FILE > + def_bool y > depends on KEXEC_FILE > depends on X86_64 && CRYPTO && CRYPTO_SHA256 >
For the ARCH_SUPPORTS_ options, I chose to list the dependencies on the def_bool line to show that it took all those conditions to result in True. However, as you point out, using a def_bool y and then listing them as 'depends on' works as well. Probably would have resulted in fewer changes to the Kconfig file. Either way is ok (the 'depends on KEXEC_FILE' is erroneous in your example). eric
>> - >> - This option makes the kexec_file_load() syscall check for a valid >> - signature of the kernel image. The image can still be loaded without >> - a valid signature unless you also enable KEXEC_SIG_FORCE, though if >> - there's a signature that we can check, then it must be valid. >> - >> - In addition to this option, you need to enable signature >> - verification for the corresponding kernel image type being >> - loaded in order for this to work. >> - >
| |