From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] efi: Request desired alignment via the PE/COFF headers Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:25:31 +0100 Message-ID: <55840A3B.3000400@fensystems.co.uk> References: <1405007963-520-1-git-send-email-mbrown@fensystems.co.uk> <55804C91.4030000@fensystems.co.uk> <20150616173725.GE13153@oranje.fc.hp.com> <20150618220241.GA2776@codeblueprint.co.uk> <558345EB.8010408@fensystems.co.uk> <20150619122147.GC2776@codeblueprint.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150619122147.GC2776-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Fleming Cc: Linn Crosetto , linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 19/06/15 13:21, Matt Fleming wrote: >> If the patch is reverted, then I think it will cause undefined >> behaviour on some platforms (which happen to load the kernel to >> non-preferred alignment, and where the memory immediately after the >> loaded kernel happens to be in use for something). > > I thought that we had previously established that this wasn't true? > > > > To which I replied with, > >> Right, this shouldn't be a problem because we do in fact allocate space >> using the EFI boottime services in efi_relocate_kernel(), taking the >> alignment into account, and then perform the kernel image copy. >> >> I still think your change makes sense, I'm just inclined to delete the >> paragraph referring to the corruption bug (which we've established >> doesn't exist). > > Do we still have a bug? Ah; that was the old e-mail thread I couldn't find! You are right; this change can safely be reverted. Sorry for the noise. Michael