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: <44F35304.7010807@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:33:08 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@...l.com>
CC:	Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	johninsd@....rr.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit
 (ping)

Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 12:00:37PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Matt Domsch wrote:
>>> No reason.  I was just trying to be careful, not leaving data in the
>>> upper bits of those registers going uninitialized.  If we know they're
>>> not being used ever, then it's not a problem.  But I don't think
>>> that's the source of the command line size concern, is it?
>>>
>> No, it's treating the command line as a fixed buffer, as opposed to a 
>> null-terminated string.  This was always a bug, by the way.
> 
> OK, I'll look at fixing that, and using %esi throughout.
> 

NAK on that.  "Using %esi throughout" is a red herring, and just will 
produce worse code for no gain.

	-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/