linux-kernel - Re: Regression: boot failure on AMD Elan TS-5500

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:14:38 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC:	Sean Young <sean@...s.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regression: boot failure on AMD Elan TS-5500

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>
>>> startup_32:
>>>         cld
>>>         /* test KEEP_SEGMENTS flag to see if the bootloader is asking
>>>          * us to not reload segments */
>>>         testb $(1<<6), BP_loadflags(%esi)
>>>         jnz 1f
>>>
>>>         cli
>>>         movl $(__BOOT_DS),%eax
>>>         movl %eax,%ds
>>>         movl %eax,%es
>>>         movl %eax,%fs
>>>         movl %eax,%gs
>>>         movl %eax,%ss
>>> 1:

On this general subject... I keep thinking that it would be better to 
have this as:

	movl	%cs, %eax
	addl	$8, %eax
	movl	%eax, %cs

... instead of a hard-coded constant.  That actually removes all 
hard-coded uses of BOOT_CS/BOOT_DS until we eventually load the kernel's 
own boot GDT at head_32.S:94.

Does anyone see any problem with that?  As far as I can tell, we're 
requiring %cs == BOOT_CS for the current code anyway (unless 
KEEP_SEGMENTS), but %ds == %cs + 8 seems like a more sensible requirement.

	-hpa
--
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/