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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <44F5DFD4.3090602@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:58:28 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Alon Bar-Lev <alon.barlev@...il.com>
CC:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, 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)

Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:56:11 +0200
> Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
>> IA64 booting is completely different. I don't think it should 
>> be in this patch. At least you would need to check with the IA64
>> maintainer first.
> 
> OK... no problem.
> 
>> 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..
> 

The kmalloc approach seems to be The Right Thing.

	-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/