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]

Date:	Wed, 02 May 2007 15:17:16 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, patches@...-64.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...ibm.com>,
	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:

> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> 
>> True.  But the plan is already to make bzImage an ELF file, so notes
>> would seem to be the best option.  At worst, it could be ELF notes
>> wrapped in some other container, but that's not pretty.
>> 
>
> It's not going to happen.  Too many boot loaders make assumptions about
> ELF files which aren't really compatible; the entry conditions for an
> ELF from a boot loader are pretty ill-defined, so I think this is a bad
> idea.
>
> At the very least, it shouldn't present the ELF magic number IMNSHO.

I agree that there are some issues.

However we need the information that is contained in ELF headers or
a semantic equivalent so we might as well play with the possibility.

There are two practical issues for ELF and bootloaders.
virtual vs. physical addresses.   In a bzImage header all
we will present will be physical addresses so that isn't an
issue.

The other issue is what is the format of the arguments that the
executable expects.  There seems to be 0 consensus on this so
bootloaders simply can't agree, and any bootloader that is
prepared to deal with kernels from different locations is going
to have to cope.

So I figure we keep our current calling conventions and have a
note saying that we are linux so the format can be auto-detected.

There are of course plenty of bootloaders that load whatever happens
to be their OS kernel however they managed to get ld to spit it out,
and there are some really weird things going on there.  But that doesn't
matter because those bootloaders can make no pretense at being general
purpose.

There is a lot of future flexibility that comes from this in addition
to making x86 closer to the other architectures.

I do agree we need to tread carefully, but I have yet to hear about
any show stopper bugs, and it works well enough at least one major distro
has shipped a linux kernel bzImage with an ELF header.

So we won't do this casually and if it there are real problems we will
remove the ELF magic number.

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/