linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/10] i386: clean up bzImage generation

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: <4672C658.2070108@goop.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:03:20 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...ibm.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	v12n <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Xen-Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] i386: clean up bzImage generation

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>   
>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>     
>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> -setup_move_size: .word  0x8000		# size to move, when setup is not
>>>> +setup_move_size: .word  _setup_size	# size to move, when setup is not
>>>>  					# loaded at 0x90000. We will move setup
>>>>  					# to 0x90000 then just before jumping
>>>>  					# into the kernel. However, only the
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> This is WRONG and will break 2.00 protocol bootloaders, if any still
>>> exist, and quite possibly some 2.01 protocol bootloaders.  There are
>>> definitiely bootloaders in the field that rely on this implicit value.   
>>>       
>> Ah, I see.  I didn't see any documentation saying that this must be
>> 0x8000.  Or does _setup_size just have to be <= 0x8000?
>>
>>     
>
> The default for unaware bootloaders has been 0x8000 since the boot
> protocol was created, and bootloaders are known to (improperly) rely on
> it.  _setup_size does have to be <= 0x8000, but that's another issue.
>   

Hm, so the worst that could happen is that an old bootloader will
over-copy 0x8000 bytes rather than the specified amount?  How would that
break anything?

> I said it probably wouldn't hurt to drop it.  I don't believe you ever
> actually explained why you wanted it dropped.

Well, I don't specifically care for Xen; I don't really mind either way
in general.  I'll break it into a separate patch and we can handle it
that way.

    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/