Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC/PoC PATCH 1/3] i386: set initrd_max to 4G - 1 to allow up to 4G initrd

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Li Zhijian <lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> > If the kernel initrd creation process creates an initrd which
> > is larger than 2GB and also claims that it can't be placed
> > with any part of it above 2GB, then that sounds like a bug
> > in the initrd creation process...
> 
> Exactly, it's a real problem.
> 
> Add x86 maintainers and LKML:
> 
> The background is that QEMU want to support up to 4G initrd. but linux header (
> initrd_addr_max field) only allow 2G-1.
> Is one of the below approaches reasonable:
> 1) change initrd_addr_max to 4G-1 directly simply(arch/x86/boot/header.S)?
> 2) lie QEMU bootloader the initrd_addr_max is 4G-1 even though header said 2G-1
> 3) any else

A 10 years old comment from hpa says:

  initrd_addr_max: .long 0x7fffffff
                                        # (Header version 0x0203 or later)
                                        # The highest safe address for
                                        # the contents of an initrd
                                        # The current kernel allows up to 4 GB,
                                        # but leave it at 2 GB to avoid
                                        # possible bootloader bugs.

To avoid the potential of bugs lurking in dozens of major and hundreds of 
minor iterations of various Linux bootloaders I'd prefer a real solution 
and extend it - because if there's a 2GB initrd for some weird reason 
today there might be a 4GB one in two years.

The real solution would be to:

 - Extend the boot protocol with a 64-bit field, named initrd_addr64_max 
   or such.

 - We don't change the old field - but if the new field is set by new
   kernels then new bootloaders can use that as a new initrd_addr64_max
   value. (or reject to load the kernel if the address is too high.)

 - The kernel build should also emit a warning when building larger than 
   2GB initrds, with a list of bootloaders that support the new protocol.

Or something along those lines.

Thanks,

	Ingo