linux-kernel - Re: [Fastboot] [RFC] ELF Relocatable x86 and x86

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]

Message-ID: <m1wt9qr5ur.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:00:12 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	fastboot@...l.org, Horms <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	Jan Kratochvil <lace@...kratochvil.net>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Fastboot] [RFC] ELF Relocatable x86 and x86_64 bzImages

Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> writes:

>> 
>> There is one outstanding issue where I am probably requiring too much
> alignment
>> on the arch/i386 kernel.  
>
> There was posts awhile ago about optimizing the kernel performance by
> loading it at a 4MB offset.  
>
> http://www.lkml.org/lkml/2006/2/23/189
>
> Your changes breaks that on i386 (not aligned on a 4MB boundary).  But a
> 5MB offset works.  Is that the correct update or does that break the
> original idea?

That patch should still apply and work as described.

Actually when this stuipd cold I have stops slowing me down,
and I fix the alignment to what it really needs to be ~= 8KB.

Then bootloaders should be able to make the decision.

HPA Does that sound at all interesting?

Eric
-
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/