linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 5/8] x86/init: move ebda reservations into linker table

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: <CALCETrW_rdxW9h0JDCG_a7PCbW88QOv2KMVdWrDwd+Zr5MfG0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2015 12:48:44 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, mcb30@...e.org,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
	long.wanglong@...wei.com, qiuxishi@...wei.com,
	Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
	valentinrothberg@...il.com, peter.senna@...il.com,
	Luis Rodriguez <mcgrof@...e.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 5/8] x86/init: move ebda reservations into linker table

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<mcgrof@...not-panic.com> wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
>
> This lets us annotate its requirements specifically for
> PC and lguest subarchitectures. While at it since head.c
> just has ebda data rename it. Since we're using linker tables
> and both x86 32-bit and 64-bit have them we don't need
> to declare a call for this separately. This lets us
> also keep this declared static now.
>
> Since we're using linker tables and have support to annotate
> subarchitecture do that instead. pv_legacy() is incorrect as
> its really only for legacy PV guests. There's no need for
> pv_legacy() check anymore now.

I'm entirely ignorant of anything going on in gPXE/iPXE.

Can you explain what a linker table *does*?  It looks like all you've
done in this patch is to move code around.  What actually happens?

--Andy
--
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/