linux-kernel - Re: bzImage 2.12

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: <51057DA7.7040907@zytor.com>
Date:	Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:19:03 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
CC:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Gokul Caushik <caushik1@...il.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Joe Millenbach <jmillenbach@...il.com>
Subject: Re: bzImage 2.12

On 01/27/2013 11:10 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 11:02 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> This is intentionally a protocol only patch, which may be possible to
>> push into 3.8 as an urgent patch.  David, if I understand our
>> discussions right it might be better to not export XLF_EFI_HANDOFF_32
>> at this time?
>
> That won't stop broken bootloaders from jumping to $handover_offset
> anyway. Anyone who was daft enough to implement EFI boot stub in their
> bootloader *despite* its obvious brokenness, rather than insisting on
> fixing it before it could be considered usable, will still be jumping
> into hyperspace. I have little sympathy for them, but I'm told we need
> to care.

At the moment I'm concerned with a new updated bootloader, which knows 
the 2.12 protocol, encountering an old kernel.

> It'd probably be better to just mark CONFIG_EFI_STUB as 'depends on
> BROKEN' for 32-bit.
>
> Or, and perhaps this is heresy, merge the patches which bloody fix it?

I think we can probably do that, since it doesn't affect anything 
non-broken at this point.  I'm sorting out what can be done for 3.8 vs 
3.9 at this point.

Anyway, as you can tell I'm spending this weekend working for a reason.

It turns out the patch I sent out doesn't actually build.  Here is an 
updated patch.  Can I get your ack for this so I can do the appropriate 
hacks to your and Yinghai's patchsets?

	-hpa

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


View attachment "0001-x86-boot-Define-the-2.12-bzImage-boot-protocol.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (9133 bytes)