linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/2] x86_32 cleanup: KERNEL_IMAGE

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

Message-Id: <1298841698-31823-1-git-send-email-psomas@cslab.ece.ntua.gr>
Date:	Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:21:36 +0200
From:	Stratos Psomadakis <psomas@...ab.ece.ntua.gr>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Stratos Psomadakis <psomas@...ab.ece.ntua.gr>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] x86_32 cleanup: KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE

I noticed that KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE is no longer used by x86_32 code
(head_32.S no longer uses it for the initial kernel mapping).

We can thus remove the assert from the vmlinux.lds.S file, and 
remove it completely for x86_32 code. 

Since head_32.S doesn't use it anymore, I can't find a reason 
why we should impose such a limit on the kernel image size
(although a 512+MB kernel image isn't what one would call a realistic
scenario :P)

I think that a limit on the size of the image is imposed anyway
by decompress_kernel()(if I understood correctly).

I also updated the comments in head_32.S which still had references
to KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE.
--
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/