From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from kirsty.vergenet.net ([202.4.237.240]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1W3HTQ-0001T3-FY for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 03:49:01 +0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:48:33 +0900 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: kexec-tools and multiboot breakage Message-ID: <20140115034833.GA30883@verge.net.au> References: <84k3e2lyde.wl%peter.chubb@nicta.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84k3e2lyde.wl%peter.chubb@nicta.com.au> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=twosheds.infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Peter Chubb Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 01:25:49PM +1000, Peter Chubb wrote: > Hi Simon, > When you get a moment, please check out > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735360 > > Quick summary: > If your kernel is configured to protect the first few pages of > physical memory, then low memory doesn't start at location 0 --- so > when scanning the memory ranges from /proc/iomem, the code in > kexec/arch/i386/kexec-multiboot-x86.c never fills in mem_lower. > > I think it's safe to assume that if a memory segment starts at 64k or > lower, it can be extended to location 0 because of the kernel > protection on a PC99-style architecture. Hi Peter, that approach seems reasonable to me. Could you formally post the patch to the kexec list with me CCed? I would like a Signed-off-by line. Thanks. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec