linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL

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: <200608272116.23498.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:16:23 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)

On Sunday 27 August 2006 20:50, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > The last time I tried this on x86-64 lilo on systems that used EDD broke.
> > EDD uses part of the bootup page too. So most likely it's not that simple.
> > 
> > And please don't shout your subjects.
> > 
> 
> On i386, the command line is never stored in the bootup page; only a 
> pointer to it is.  The copying is done straight into the 
> saved_command_line buffer in the kernel BSS (head.S lines 79-104).
> 
> x86-64 does the same thing, but in C code (head64.c lines 45-56.)  Thus, 
> if you had a problem with LILO, I suspect the problem was inside LILO 
> itself, and not a kernel issue.

Just increasing that constant caused various lilo setups to not boot
anymore. I don't know who is actually to blame, just wanting to
point out that this "obvious" patch isn't actually that obvious.

-Andi
-
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/