| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:22:39 -0600 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...ibm.com>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Fix boot protocol KEEP_SEGMENTS check. "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Both x86 and x86_64 support the same boot protocol so we need >> to implement the KEEP_SEGMENTS on x86_64 as well. It isn't >> just paravirt bootloaders that could use this functionality. >> > > Out of curiousity, what other users do you see? Simply that is easier to provide segments that are not fit to be reloaded before the kernel sets up it's own GDT. Then to ensure you stick a GDT someplace that won't get stomped. Especially before we froze which segments numbers the kernel would load into the boot protocol. I would have used this in places where I was doing 32bit bootloader work as it is just easier to support. Eric - 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