[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180123181335.GP7844@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:13:35 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6, RESEND 4/4] x86/boot/compressed/64: Handle 5-level
paging boot if kernel is above 4G
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 08:37:03PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 09:31:16AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
> > <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > But if the bootloader put the kernel above 4G (not sure if anybody does
> > > this), we would lose control as soon as paging is disabled, because the
> > > code becomes unreachable to the CPU.
> >
> > I do wonder if we need this. Why would a bootloader ever put the data
> > above 4G? Does this really happen? Wouldn't it be easier to just say
> > "bootloaders better put the kernel in the low 4G"?
>
> I don't know much about bootloaders, but do we even have such guarantee
> for in-kernel bootloader -- kexec?
There's no such guarantee, so we need it at least for kexec.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists