From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.alien8.de (mail.alien8.de [65.109.113.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 842BE3D0AA for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:56:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=65.109.113.108 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709319397; cv=none; b=YSjq5nCf3VLDIPzgE2WTdqB2ENBJtPNyECooDMheQ1E7FNoyJTi4cTeqihZNaNascLjlDOQVdDrkhPYsGX0gCuGp80QcVKiOs7fr9lNHr3GR4mtrkDgbLI6iaUocj8S8Phzz96CGVwS+Q000yG7CurVwBZ3AhT2vzWOixvIzdsE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709319397; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BVb+h0Vtm9WjPCyU32l9Vp54s57Uy/S9SWFffjmGRIQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=XlT2dxEcjKemYArQA7z8oy3bfGIs0v7K/JavjiEbqJad1rtditjrueDyShmxKrc94Rtp8aNMxVoIc9BiQ84ZZn2bz5ZxBtpEJP7QdN6bw9ffcuRsdK6hteKWbjv9T8TK17oUeRAChfhumTbXVlvyoANGkkO1dl+JDg4Xon/Ph/I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=alien8.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=alien8.de; dkim=fail (4096-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b=KPWgivlo reason="signature verification failed"; arc=none smtp.client-ip=65.109.113.108 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=alien8.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=alien8.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (4096-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="KPWgivlo" Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.alien8.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTP id 49BBE40E0185; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:56:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.alien8.de Authentication-Results: mail.alien8.de (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (4096-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=alien8.de Received: from mail.alien8.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.alien8.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id qPHddR4wPZe3; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:56:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=alien8; t=1709319389; bh=E01+dFN8VTEoLLAD2Ao4WnzpOXaG683rBiOqtwGShec=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=KPWgivloQIcfzz0TZiqEEd+rvvR3g+USJC8fKYEz0gZcCd0ubfoCV/p454nQqg2ZQ t/gOhCe8NityxU4aeiR4EpgWuX1elQGUp6i/W61Y74haxgH1DteJtqj5s9V5PdVxYs WacEaNJepNmJ4uyybKg0O9VarO8OGPolgu3TZwKgnnS22fWGeL6VR4r16vKtAJSta5 x9yA868mmsbWW5S58eLBg57CB69mJDOmy6KVCuvlBrYIRfcmV7qIdA+4fy8P4CX9od sq7/RXJDzusNO/YQPA5seMiIdhoPdVTxAu9t2UmDdaKZwJyWfNc5UAaqPns16F4qgl a7BHrvEf9EBEuP4aVRSBsH3hC/2QXNeghd8WVwbzZoJfJNdzg3R4X92q9elYBnQNhL NhYqWjLnZHvVljkgRfUOBkFp6gGQlsU/ZxGBQdLTKYgz3K7D9eteeiB+OMs2MtC0lK 1ir9NN+AGu62f51tnSd6r3Cghu/m8MGYdQSeAkmNuomv4M6kVwJAlNnqNcaOklfSoT AvJKzcyJWN0r5dC4vZuCQ44UEfTJJ9mefgcxmu2O3X3Qwm+YmGP0ckjP0r38GpNEj5 9qNSDwolx0cKoQ+8iXi68tIhZK2RkWTOWkSkYj4sL5+mtJuQFUGqhyBsNRUHSQ3yyN g2kxGXSBJuObdh+ZVp976R74= Received: from zn.tnic (pd953021b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.83.2.27]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.alien8.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 17A3240E00B2; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:56:26 +0000 (UTC) From: Borislav Petkov To: Baoquan He Cc: X86 ML , LKML Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] x86/kexec: Revert 5level dynamic switching Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 19:56:16 +0100 Message-ID: <20240301185618.19663-1-bp@alien8.de> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "Borislav Petkov (AMD)" Hi, I think this is silly - both 1st and second, the-kexec'ed kernel would either have CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL enabled or not - why would this be different. And this'll become even more the case in the future. So remove this silly stuff. Unless there's a valid use case, which I'm willing to hear. Those commit messages don't say anything about it. Thx. Borislav Petkov (AMD) (2): Revert "x86/kexec/64: Prevent kexec from 5-level paging to a 4-level only kernel" Revert "x86/boot: Add xloadflags bits to check for 5-level paging support" arch/x86/boot/header.S | 12 +----------- arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bootparam.h | 2 -- arch/x86/kernel/kexec-bzimage64.c | 5 ----- 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 18 deletions(-) --=20 2.43.0