Re: Kexec command line length

From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: Kexec command line length
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:09:17 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080128210917.GF32765@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080128205324.GC1174@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:53:24PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:20:41PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > >  
> > >  struct x86_linux_header {
> > > @@ -206,7 +210,10 @@ struct x86_linux_header {
> > >  #else
> > >  	uint32_t kernel_alignment;		/* 0x230 */
> > >  	uint8_t  relocatable_kernel;		/* 0x234 */
> > > -	uint8_t  tail[32*1024 - 0x235];		/* 0x230 */
> > > +	uint32_t cmdline_size;                  /* 0x235 */
> > > +	uint32_t hardware_subarch;              /* 0x239 */
> > > +	uint64_t hardware_subarch_data;         /* 0x23D */
> > 
> > We need a padding of 3 bytes here too between relocatable kernel and
> > cmdline_size, in the same way as x86_linux_param_header?
> > 
> 
> Oh, good catch, yes we do need that.  I expect it passed my testing because the
> garbage that wound up in cmdline_size was big enough to pass the check in
> do_bzImage_load.
> 
> New patch, same summary as before, with the above correction
> 
> Regards
> Neil
> 
> Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> 
> 

Thanks. Looks good to me.

Regards
Vivek

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec