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: <20170622094030.7ge2g2wsvpc6lx5r@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2017 11:40:30 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2][RFC] x86/boot/e820: Introduce e820_table_ori to
 represent the real original e820 layout


* Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com> wrote:

> Currently we try to have e820_table_firmware to represent the
> original firmware memory layout passed to us by the bootloader,
> however it is not the case, the e820_table_firmware might still
> be modified by linux:
> 1. During bootup, the efi boot stub might allocate memory via
>    efi service for the PCI device information structure, then
>    later e820_reserve_setup_data() reserved these dynamically
>    allocated structures(AKA, setup_data) in e820_table_firmware
>    accordingly.
> 2. The kexec might also modify the e820_table_firmware.

Hm, so why does the EFI code modify e280_table_firmware - why doesn't
it modify e820_table?

I.e. what is the point of having 3 different versions of the
memory layout table?

Thanks,

	Ingo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ