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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <44F5E7ED.3050900@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:33:01 -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:
>
> Changing saved_command_line is a modification to all
> architectures... They all modify this variable...
> So, should I submit a patch to all architectures? How can I test this?
> 

Submit a patch set, with the common changes in one patch and the 
architecture-specific bits broken out per architecture; that way the 
individual arch maintainers can look at their piece.  Since it's a 
simple variable rename, it shouldn't be a big deal.

> Also for i386 the code is assembly... So I can modify the code to write
> into a __init buffer and then kmalloc in setup.c.

Don't do that.  Just change the name of the buffer in head.S.

	-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/