From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751031Ab2LSU5l (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:57:41 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:39072 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750776Ab2LSU5e (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:57:34 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:57:32 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Eric W. Biederman" , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/27] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode after 0x200 Message-ID: <20121219205732.GI24895@liondog.tnic> Mail-Followup-To: Borislav Petkov , Yinghai Lu , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Eric W. Biederman" , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matt Fleming References: <1355436141-8668-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <1355436141-8668-4-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <20121215170625.GA9875@liondog.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:01:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> We are short of space before 0x200 that is entry for startup_64. > > > > And you're moving this down because of the couple of bytes the next > > patch is adding? If so, then explain that here. > > better? > > --- > Subject: [PATCH] x86, boot: move verify_cpu.S and no_longmode down > > We need to move some code with 32bit section in following patch: > > x86, boot: Move lldt/ltr out of 64bit code section > > but that will push startup_64 down from 0x200. > > According to hpa, we can not change startup_64 to other offset and > that become ABI now. > > We could move function verify_cpu and no_longmode down, because > verify_cpu is used via function call and no_longmode will not > return. > --- Almost. So this explains what you're doing but I'd like to know why? Why do you need to free some more room between startup_32 and startup_64? Do you need this room in another patch, maybe the next one: "[PATCH v7 14/27] x86, boot: Move lldt/ltr out of 64bit code section" Is that so? If yes, please write that in the commit message so that we know why you're doing that change. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --