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: <200608301931.14434.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:31:14 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@...il.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@...l.com>,
	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)

On Wednesday 30 August 2006 19:06, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:

> > 
> > And the other thing is that this will cost memory. Either make
> > it dependend on !CONFIG_SMALL or fix the boot code to save the 
> > command line into a kmalloc'ed buffer of the right size and __init 
> > the original one
> 
> I don't mind doing either... Any preference for one of them? The
> kmalloc approach seems nicer..

kmalloc is better yes. You just have to do it after kmalloc is up
and running and make sure the users before reference the __init'ed version.
I suspect only /proc/cmdline will need the kmalloc version after booting, 
nobody else should look at the command line.

-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/