| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:20:49 -0400 From: Brandon Falk <bfalk@...ozolabs.com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [question] x86/x86_64 boot process It's currently only for learning purposes, and I will change loading from 0x90000. Thanks for the help, now that I know that I'm responsible for loading the protected-mode code, I know what to do next. On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote: > On 06/12/2012 02:14 PM, Brandon Falk wrote: >> All I really see related to the post-setup stage is: >> >> 'The 32-bit (non-real-mode) kernel starts at offset (setup_sects+1)*512 >> in the kernel file (again, if setup_sects == 0 the real value is 4.) >> It should be loaded at address 0x10000 for Image/zImage kernels and >> 0x100000 for bzImage kernels.' >> >> I've read this document a few times, and it doesn't seem to mention if >> the kernel assists in loading. Do I have to load up the whole >> protected-mode kernel? Just the first few sectors? I guess that's what >> I'm trying to figure out, and I feel the boot.txt has not answered >> that for me. >> > > I would also strongly discourage you from writing a new bootloader if > you can avoid it. You *certainly* want to avoid the use of the fixed > 0x90000 address, that is a decade obsolete. > > -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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists