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  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:	Sun, 4 Nov 2007 16:23:11 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <>
cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <>,
	Mikael Pettersson <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix i486 boot failure due to stale %ds

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I'd suggest having both jumps back-to-back, but realistically, the 
> first regular short jump is actually the one that is more important. 
> That's the one that really matters on i386/i486 class machines, and later 
> CPU's will generally do the right thing even with _neither_ jump there.

That's obviously badly phrased.

The far jump is obviously required on all CPU's in order for us to 
actually finally get to 32-bit protected mode and reload CS, but what I 
*meant* was that we certainly also know that "unreal mode" works and is 
used by various strange DOS extenders, and that not doing the far jump 
isn't really required for having a "working setup" - it's just going to be 
a rather limited mode.

So the short jump is required for the code to *work*. The long jump is 
required only to get us the 32-bit mode we *want* and out of the odd 
"half-way" state. Two different issues.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists