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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:57:22 +0800
From:	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	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

On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 03:38 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Well there actually is no reason to copy the current data into the
> zero page.  We really should just leave it where it is until the
> kernel has managed to bootstrap it's basic services.

I think it is safer to copy boot parameters to kernel BSS segment.
Because the kernel bootstrap process may overwrite the original memory
area of boot parameters.

> As for the setup data can we please remove the pointers. And just
> require the that the data items be appended one after each other
> in memory.  Then we would just need a field where we could
> report an offset to the binary data from where we loaded the
> 16bit code/data.  We could even specify the end by requiring
> that we fill in setup_move_size or something of that nature.

In this solution, we should also avoid conflict between the boot data
and kernel early bootstrap process. I think copy these boot data to some
place safe may be better. Such as memory area after _end.

> Beyond that we should provide the bootloaders enough information to
> know which information the kernel will overwrite before it consults
> the e820 map and other indicators of what memory is free.

There are several memory areas used by kernel bootstrap before e820 map
is consulted. You can refer to bad_addr for details. So I think it may
be not a stable/simple prototype to provide this information to
bootloader.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying
-
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/