| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070912112308.GA17436@in.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:53:08 +0530 From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...ibm.com> To: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] Extended crashkernel command line On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:01:10PM +0200, Bernhard Walle wrote: > * Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...ibm.com> [2007-09-11 08:15]: > > > > "offset" seems to be optional in the new syntax. What happens if user does > > not specify offset. I think crash_base will be set to zero and system will > > try to reserve x amount of memory start at zero? That would fail? > > That's handled in the architecture specific code -- because it's > different on each architecture and the architecture specific code does > memory reservation. IA64 already can handle this case (on IA64, > specifying 0 is the same than leaving out the base address, and that's > why I wanted to keep that semantics). I think it doesn't also make > sense on i386/x86_64 to choose 0 as real base address, because the > value below 1 MB is special for booting ... > Ok. I see IA64 is handling this case. But in current patchset, i386 and x86_64 will try to reserve memory starting at zero? So we still got to handle this case in i386 and x86_64? Thanks Vivek - 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