linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MIPS: TXx9: Let MACH_TX49XX select BOOT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211130093251.GA9308@alpha.franken.de>
Date:   Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:32:51 +0100
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: TXx9: Let MACH_TX49XX select BOOT_ELF32

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 07:57:14PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Some bootloaders (e.g. VxWorks 5.5 System Boot) on TX49 systems do not
> support loading 64-bit kernel images.  Work around this by selecting
> BOOT_ELF32, to support running both 32-bit ("vmlinux" with
> CONFIG_32BIT=y) and 64-bit ("vmlinux.32" with CONFIG_64BIT=y) Linux
> kernels on TX49 devices with such a boot loader.
> 
> Suggested-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> ---
> Tested on RBTX4927, running a Debian jessie 32-bit mipsel nfsroot userland, and
> some 32-bit and 64-bit test binaries.
> ---
>  arch/mips/txx9/Kconfig | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/mips/txx9/Kconfig b/arch/mips/txx9/Kconfig
> index 85c4c121c71f72d9..00f6fc446abeefe8 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/txx9/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/mips/txx9/Kconfig
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ config MACH_TX39XX
>  
>  config MACH_TX49XX
>  	bool
> +	select BOOT_ELF32
>  	select MACH_TXX9
>  	select CEVT_R4K
>  	select CSRC_R4K
> -- 
> 2.25.1

applied to mips-next.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]