linux-kernel - Re: v2.6.28-rc2: x86_32 relocation regression?

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]

Message-ID: <492C3687.1070304@zytor.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:31:51 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
CC:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: v2.6.28-rc2: x86_32 relocation regression?

Vegard Nossum wrote:
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> It seems to be caused by this commit:
> 
> commit 5cb04df8d3f03e37a19f2502591a84156be71772
> Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Date:   Sun May 4 19:49:04 2008 +0200
> 
>     x86: defconfig updates
> 
> -CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START=0x100000
> -# CONFIG_RELOCATABLE is not set
> -CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN=0x100000
> ...
> +CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START=0x1000000
> +CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y
> +CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN=0x200000
> 
> Were all changes intentional?
> 

Yes, but it's unacceptable that a relocatable kernel *NOT RELOCATED BY
THE BOOTLOADER* ends up with the debug information incorrect.  That is a
bug, plain and simple, and needs to be fixed.

	-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/