GNU bug report logs - #75402
[PATCH 0/3] Assorted kexec fixes

Previous Next

Package: guix-patches;

Reported by: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 12:58:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Done: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>
Cc: Josselin Poiret <dev <at> jpoiret.xyz>, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>, 75402 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe <at> gnu.org>, Christopher Baines <guix <at> cbaines.net>
Subject: [bug#75402] [PATCH 0/3] Assorted kexec fixes
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2025 19:12:43 +0100
Hi,

Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> skribis:

>>> One feature request though.  I think it would be nice to get
>>> --no-kexec for guix-deploy as well :)
>>
>> Good point.  I’m not sure where to put it though.  In
>> <machine-ssh-configuration>?
>
> I am asking for a command line argument.  Not sure if that does answer
> the question.  I am not familiar enough with this part to suggest how to
> wire the option through the program flow.

The reason I was suggesting this is that authorize?, allow-downgrades?,
safety-checks? are already part of <machine-ssh-configuration>.  These
cannot really be a command-line option… for reasons that escape me right
now.  :-)  But anyway, I thought we’d be in the same situation here.

> On a separate note, if we would want to disable the kexec in the
> definition, I feel like operating-system would be the most fitting
> place.  Reason being that either I want to kexec the specific system or
> I do not want to kexec it.  But I would expect that to rarely correlate
> with the deployment method.  Sometimes I reconfigure the system via
> guix-deploy, sometimes (when I break the networking) via
> guix-system-reconfigure from USB drive, and it would seem to make sense
> to have kexec behave the same way for both of the approaches.

Hmm I see.  The way I saw it, kexec loading is a bonus that doesn’t cost
much, which is why it’s opt-out.  It didn’t occur to me that one would
really want to control that to the level you describe.

Ludo’.




This bug report was last modified 135 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.