linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: documentation fix regarding boot protocol

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

Message-Id: <1229340862.25349.95.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:34:22 +0000
From:	Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>
To:	Philipp Kohlbecher <xt28@....de>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: documentation fix regarding boot protocol

On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 12:27 +0100, Philipp Kohlbecher wrote:
> Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 18:50 +0100, Philipp Kohlbecher wrote:
> >> Documentation/x86/boot.txt describes payload_offset as the offset
> >> from the end of the real-mode code. In fact, it is more accurately
> >> described as the offset from the beginning of the protected-mode
> >> code, as (a) this is how it is actually calculated and (b) the padding
> >> after the real-mode code is not included in the offset.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Philipp Kohlbecher <xt28@....de>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>
> > 
> > The padding after the real-mode code which you mention is just the
> > implicit padding because the size of the real-mode code is specified in
> > sectors (and hence is rounded up), isn't it?
> 
> Yes, it is. You can certainly view the padding as an implicit part of 
> the real-mode code, which is why the current statement isn't wrong -- 
> there is simply room for improvement.

Agreed.

> > Is it worth saying that the payload_offset is relative to (setup_sectors
> > +1) * 512?
> 
> The fact that the protected-mode code starts at that address is already 
> mentioned under the heading "LOADING THE REST OF THE KERNEL" (where 
> protected mode is for some reason referred to as "non-real-mode").

I'd missed/forgotten that section, I don't think anything extra is
needed then.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Campbell
Current Noise: Orange Goblin - Made Of Rats

Fatal Error: Found [MS-Windows] System -> Repartitioning Disk for Linux...
(By cbbrown@...org, Christopher Browne)

--
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/