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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:32:19 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> Cc: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...tuozzo.com>, tip-bot for Jacob Shin <tipbot@...or.com>, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, willy@...radead.org, gorcunov@...nvz.org, bp@...e.de, peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...capital.net Subject: Re: [tip:x86/boot] x86/boot/compressed/64: Handle 5-level paging boot if kernel is above 4G * Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:43:56AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:41:22AM -0800, Andrei Vagin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:08:16AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:51:56PM -0800, Andrei Vagin wrote: > > > > > > Hi Kirill, > > > > > > > > > > > > Something is wrong in this patch. > > > > > > Could you please check if this makes a difference? > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S > > > index 70b30f2bc9e0..99a0e7993252 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S > > > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S > > > @@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ ENTRY(startup_64) > > > > > > /* Make sure we have GDT with 32-bit code segment */ > > > leaq gdt(%rip), %rax > > > - movl %eax, gdt64+2(%rip) > > > + movq %rax, gdt64+2(%rip) > > > lgdt gdt64(%rip) > > > > There's another suspicious looking pattern as well: > > > > leaq startup_32(%rip), %rax > > movl %eax, BP_code32_start(%rsi) > > ... > > movl BP_code32_start(%esi), %eax > > leaq startup_64(%rax), %rax > > ... > > code32_start is 4-byte field as described in the boot protocol, so the > truncation is intentional I think. Ok - and I guess the fact that the field includes '32' is documentation enough that this is expected. Thanks, Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists