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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710260131280.17830@bruno> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:25:58 -0600 (CST) From: Joseph Parmelee <jparmele@...dbear.com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Old version of lilo fails to boot 2.6.23 On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> [Ancient LILO boot problem] >> >> Joseph, could you try this patch on your ancient-LILO setup? >> > > Actually, please try this one instead. > > -hpa > This patch will work in my particular case, though it appears to violate the rules about getting too close to the EBDA (SP=0xB000 on entry). The boot loader is responsible for loading the kernel loader at a suitable location in low memory, but I don't understand why the boot loader should be involved in setting the stack at all. If we explicitly allocate the stack as part of the .data segment, why not just play it safe and in all cases fully set up the stack in header.S? This insures that the stack pointer is not zero, is as low as possible to stay out of the EBDA, and that ss=ds; quite irrespective of what the boot loader does. What am I missing? Regards, Joseph Please CC me directly as I am no longer subscribed to the list. - 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