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: <44F1F356.5030105@zytor.com>
Date:	Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:32:38 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
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)

Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

How would that even be possible (unless you recompiled LILO with the new 
headers)?  There would be no difference in the memory image at the point 
LILO hands off to the kernel.

In order to reproduce this we need some details about your "various LILO 
setups", or this will remain as a source of cargo cult programming.

	-hpa

-
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/