From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762839AbYF3TQz (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:16:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750859AbYF3TQr (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:16:47 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:52266 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750797AbYF3TQq (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:16:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:16:28 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Yinghai Lu Cc: "Huang, Ying" , "H. Peter Anvin" , andi@firstfloor.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86 boot: add E820_RESVD_KERN Message-ID: <20080630191628.GA15366@elte.hu> References: <86802c440806260247p19f5b850r8757c51280912ae9@mail.gmail.com> <86802c440806261922n3f13b454o5e543e28d9a34e8e@mail.gmail.com> <1214534894.10865.6.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <86802c440806271505n78275758re235ef6616d95b3d@mail.gmail.com> <1214809434.2887.8.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <86802c440806300034x5bb9b7a1s168bbeaee17e5124@mail.gmail.com> <1214812303.3187.10.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <86802c440806300215w31abbcb3h6a42395e11701713@mail.gmail.com> <1214818706.23677.8.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com> <86802c440806301205y35563326rd2ada495a0024441@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86802c440806301205y35563326rd2ada495a0024441@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Yinghai Lu wrote: > > For find_e820_area, this is safe enough. But what about conflict > > between setup_data and ebda or ramdisk? > > can you have setup_data and ebda at the same time? > > setup_data and ramdisk should be ok, because bootloader is supposed to > make them not to be conflicts. the more sanity checks we do before relying on some crutial data, the better. It's easier to panic or sanitize data in some structured way and complain about it in the syslog than to let things get corrupted. Boot loaders are ... not unknown to be have bugs too, at times. Ingo