linux-kernel - Re: brk patches..

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: <49AB316E.4000009@zytor.com>
Date:	Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:07:58 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: brk patches..

Yinghai Lu wrote:
> 
> hope later boot loader could check vmlinux size in bzImage (according uncompressed size)
> and find good position in RAM for bzImage.
> 
> we should find good position for brk with find_e820_area().
> 

If the brk is bounded-size on the same order or smaller as the kernel,
we should just mark it as an unallocated (bss) section in the ELF image
and be done with it... there really is no point in trying to be smarter
(we'd be subject to failures to load the kernel proper.)  If the brk is
significantly bigger, then yes, we need to be smarter.  However, that is
not my current understanding of the requirements.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/