linux-kernel - Re: Extending boot protocol & bzImage for paravirt

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: <466093E3.4010701@goop.org>
Date:	Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:47:15 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Extending boot protocol & bzImage for paravirt_ops

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Do we care particularly? If 8 bytes is enough for the subarch, do we
>> care whether its a pointer or literal? After all, this is just a private
>> channel between the bootloader and some subarch-specific piece of code
>> in the kernel.
>>
>>     
>
> I see two options: either we make it a pointer *and a length* so that a
> loader can reshuffle it at will (that also implies no absolute pointers
> within the data), or it's an opaque cookie anyway.
>   

No, it has to be completely opaque.  It might be a pointer to some
special shared memory or something, and not movable.

    J
-
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/