linux-kernel - Re: x86 setup rewrite tree ready for flamage^W review

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:	Sat, 12 May 2007 11:59:42 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
	"Antonino A. Daplas" <adaplas@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@...l.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...ibm.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPar>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x86 setup rewrite tree ready for flamage^W review

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> Even on 386 and 486 class cpus?
> 

Yes, even on 386 and 486 class CPUs.  I have personally tested this on
machines as old as the original "double sigma" 386-16.

> To some extent if the rules don't change it makes sense for them to
> copy the information from one generation to the next of the architecture.
> Even if the current cpus don't really care.
> 
> I guess I just don't see the sense in taking chances if we don't have
> to, and I don't see any real advantage of doing a data segment reload
> before the jump.

It makes the code cleaner -- more debuggable -- by introducing clean
separation between 16- and 32-bit code.

	-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/