linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm -v5 0/3] i386/x86

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: <1192412834.28792.16.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:47:14 +0800
From:	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	Chandramouli Narayanan <mouli@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -v5 0/3] i386/x86_64 boot: 32-bit boot protocol

Hi, Peter and Andi,

Do you think this patch set is ready for merging? Otherwise what I can
do to make it ready?

Best Regards,
Huang Ying

On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 13:52 +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> This patchset defines a 32-bit boot protocol for i386/x86_64 platform,
> adds an extensible boot parameter passing mechanism, export the boot
> parameters via sysfs.
> 
> The patchset has been tested against 2.6.23-rc8-mm2 kernel on x86_64
> and i386.
> 
> This patchset is based on the proposal of Peter Anvin.
> 
> 
> Known Issues:
> 
> - Where is safe to place the linked list of setup_data?  Because the
>   length of the linked list of setup_data is variable, it can not be
>   copied into BSS segment of kernel as that of "zero page". We must
>   find a safe place for it, where it will not be overwritten by kernel
>   during booting up. The i386 kernel will overwrite some pages after
>   _end. The x86_64 kernel will overwrite some pages from 0x1000 on.
> 
> - The fields in zero page are fairly complex (such as struct
>   edd_info). Is it necessary to document every field inside the first
>   level fields, until the primary data type? Or is it sufficient to
>   provide the C struct name only?
> 
> 
> v5:
> 
> - Use bt_ioremap/bt_iounmap in copy_setup_data.
> 
> v4:
> 
> - Reserve setup_data and boot parameters for accessing during
>   runtime.
> - Export boot parameters via sysfs.
> 
> v3:
> 
> - Move hd0_info and hd1_info back to zero page for compatibility.
> 
> v2:
> 
> - Increase the boot protocol version number
> - Check version number before parsing setup data.
> - Revise zero page description according to the source code and move
>   them to zero-page.txt.
-
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/