linux-kernel - Re: [patches] [PATCH] [21/22] x86_64: Extend bzImage protocol for relocatable bzImage

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: <m1mz0pyt7u.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Tue, 01 May 2007 00:05:09 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	patches@...-64.org, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patches] [PATCH] [21/22] x86_64: Extend bzImage protocol for relocatable bzImage

"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:

> Rusty Russell wrote:
>> 
>> BTW, wrt. a new "platform type" field, should it go something like this?
>> 
>> -0235/3	N/A	pad2		Unused
>> +0235/1	2.07+	platform_type	Runtime platform (see below)
>> +0236/2	N/A	pad2		Unused
>> ...
>> +  platform_type:
>> +	For kernels which can boot on multiple platforms.  Currently
>> +	0 == native (normal), 1 == lguest (paravirtualized).
>> 
>
> Well, yes, but we need to think about if there is more things that
> should be added.  There *definitely* should be space for a platform data
> pointer, to start out with.  I would also like to see a platform data
> field, as well as a bootloader extension field (we're going to have that
> problem soon enough.)

Well in the paravirt case since we are starting virtually mapped
if we don't start with vmlinux but bzImage we need to define what
that virtual address space should contain, and where in the address
space it is safe to put those page tables.

Of the requirements I have heard so far that is the trickiest one.
Because it basically requires us to have a reasonable worst case
estimate of how much memory we are going to use before we start using
the bootmem allocator.

Eric
-
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/