linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 11/12] x86, boot: add fields to support load bzImage and ramdisk high

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:30:41 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/12] x86, boot: add fields to support load bzImage
 and ramdisk high

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/2012 09:32 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> On 11/24/2012 04:37 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly /sbin/kexec isn't bothering to calculate the end of the setup
>>> header and just being far more conservative and using all of the 16bit
>>> real mode code as it's initializer.
>>>
>>
>> That's not conservative... that's just plain wrong.  It means you're
>> initializing the fields in struct boot_params with garbage instead of a
>> predictable value (zero).
>>
>> We could work around it with a sentinel hack... except you *also*
>> probably modify *some* fields and now we have a horrid mix of
>> initialized and uninitialized fields to sort out... and there really
>> isn't any sane way for the kernel to sort that out.
>>
>> We have a huge problem on our hands now because of it.
>>
>
> So, given the mess we now have on our hands... any suggestions how to best
> solve it?  There is the option of simply declaring old kexec binaries
> broken; they will then not work reliably with newer kernels, if they even
> work reliably now -- it is hard to know for certain.

yes, if the user updates kernel to be kexeced, then would be
reasonable to ask them to
update kexec-tools.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/