Re: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)

H. Peter Anvin
2006-08-28T19:01:06Z

Matt Domsch wrote:
>
> No reason. I was just trying to be careful, not leaving data in the
> upper bits of those registers going uninitialized. If we know they're
> not being used ever, then it's not a problem. But I don't think
> that's the source of the command line size concern, is it?
>

No, it's treating the command line as a fixed buffer, as opposed to a
null-terminated string. This was always a bug, by the way.

-hpa