linux-kernel - Re: Preliminary kexec support for Linux/m68k

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20130920191850.GA23335@verge.net.au>
Date:	Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:18:50 -0700
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
	kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Preliminary kexec support for Linux/m68k

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 09:15:02AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> Thanks for your comments!
> 
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote:
> > Pasting two series in one was a bit confusing for me at first.
> > Perhaps you could consider posting two separate series in future.
> 
> Sorry, I wanted to have all information in one series for the first posting, to
> avoid people having to look around too much if they want to give it a try.
> 
> I'll post seperate series in the future.

Thanks.

> >> Patches:
> >>   - [PATCH 1/2] kexec: Let slurp_file_len() return the number of bytes
> >>   - [PATCH 2/2] kexec: Add preliminary m68k support
> >>
> >> Notes:
> >>   - Based on git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/kernel/kexec/kexec-tools.git
> >
> > A good choice.
> 
> Is it normal I don't see much activity there?

Yes, that is normal.

> 
> >>   - The ramdisk is loaded at the top of memory minus 4096, unlike with
> >>     m68boot (ataboot/amiboot), as locate_hole() seems to have a bug that it
> >>     cannot reserve a block at the real top of memory.
> >
> > Is this a bug that could be fixed?
> 
> Possibly. I suspect an off-by-one bug somewhere, but I haven't looked deeply
> into it.

My feeling is that if possible it would be better to fix the bug than add a
work-around.

> >>   - Do we want to check the struct bootversion at the start of the kernel,
> >>     like m68kboot does?
> >>     Kexec may be used to load ELF files that are not Linux kernel images,
> >>     and thus don't have a Linux-specific struct bootversion.
> >
> > If the check can sanely be skipped for non Linux kernel images then
> > this sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Otherwise I would lean towards
> > omitting it. Either way, I don't feel strongly about this.
> >
> >>   - Do we want to check the size of the kernel image + bootinfo, and warn the
> >>     user if it's larger than 4 MiB?
> >>     This is a limitation of the current Linux/m68k kernel only.
> >
> > I think that sounds like a good idea but I don't feel strongly about it.
> 
> Currently I'm leaning towards just printing a warning for both
> (missing/incompatible
> bootversion and image-too-large).

That sounds fine to me.
--
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/