[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <463B62B3.1030408@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 09:43:31 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] boot bzImages under paravirt
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> In 32-bit mode? Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!
>>
>
> Right, yes.
>
>> What's worse, reloading segments here might be highly unsafe, if the
>> memory previously occupied by the GDT has been overwritten. Keep in
>> mind the GDT is touched on a segment *load*, not on a segment *access*;
>> in areas such as booting that can be a huge difference.
>>
>
> Yep, suits me. I'm happy for the code to assume that at least %cs and
> %ds are sane; I guess %ss too. We could copy %ds into %[efg]s if we
> want to be sure (since I could imagine a bootloader leaving them in a
> less defined state).
No, we shouldn't. %es should be assumed set up (this is 32-bit code,
after all!), and %fs and %gs should not be used.
> But if the gdt could be missing altogether, then, yes, we should not
> touch them at all.
Exactly. Not relying on a set-up GDT is the safest option, IMNSHO.
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists