Re: [PATCH 0/2] efi: Enhance capsule loader to support signed Quark images

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue
<pure.logic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 28/02/17 13:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
>>> <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 28 February 2017 at 12:29, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Feb, at 01:20:25PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I said before, I'd be ok with it if we select it compile time,
>>>> i.e., no runtime logic that infers whether we are running on such a
>>>> system or not, and no carrying both implementations in all kernels
>>>> that have capsule loading built in.
>>>
>>> Actually it most likely that Quark kernel (kernel compiled to be run
>>> on Quark) will be ever used on the rest of (modern) x86 since it's
>>> 486+ architecture (kernel has specific option for it, 586TSC).
>>
>> + it's UP only!
>>
>>> So, we might just be dependent or chosen by Quark.
>>
>
> Still though the current ia32 kernel runs on Quark and all other ia32
> systems.

How come? Quark has a silicon bug (SMP kernel might oops) and it is
not even i586!

> It would be a pity/shame to make this feature dependent on
> compiling a Quark specific kernel, after all its only a header on a
> capsule as opposed to a large hardware-level architectural divergence.
>

> I'd still like us to try for a low-fat hook that would a big fat ia32
> kernel just work without having to force a user compile up a
> Quark-specific kernel.

Can you elaborate how to run i686 kernel (which is default for x86
32-bit AFAIK) on Quark?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko