From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>, "Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>,
"Alan Jenkins" <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: check for and defend against BIOS memory corruption
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:03:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48B82BFD.5030807@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808290817190.21494@blonde.site>
Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> hpa introduced the 64k idea, and we've all been repeating it;
> but I've not heard the reasoning behind it. Is it a fundamental
> addressing limitation within the BIOS memory model? Or a case
> that Windows treats the bottom 64k as scratch, so BIOS testers
> won't notice if they corrupt it?
>
I should point out that I have seen one particular bug quite a few times
poking around with boot loaders: the BIOS accesses memory at an
otherwise valid address, but with the segment base set to either zero or
0x400 instead of whatever it should have been.
-hpa
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-29 17:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-28 19:52 [PATCH RFC] x86: check for and defend against BIOS memory corruption Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-29 1:49 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-08-29 3:28 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-29 9:25 ` Alan Cox
2008-08-29 10:13 ` Rafał Miłecki
2008-08-29 10:06 ` Alan Cox
2008-08-29 10:24 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-08-29 11:54 ` Rafał Miłecki
2008-08-29 12:09 ` Alan Jenkins
2008-08-29 13:21 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-08-29 16:30 ` Rafał Miłecki
2008-08-29 17:39 ` Rafał Miłecki
2008-09-04 19:42 ` Rafał Miłecki
2008-09-04 20:23 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-09-04 23:04 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-09-06 18:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-29 14:08 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-29 14:18 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-29 20:31 ` Kasper Sandberg
2008-08-30 1:15 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-29 6:20 ` Rafał Miłecki
2008-08-29 6:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-29 7:21 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-29 7:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-29 8:02 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-29 7:22 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-29 8:14 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-08-29 14:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-29 17:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-09-08 11:35 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-09-08 17:16 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-09-08 19:14 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-09-08 19:45 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-29 17:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-08-29 17:03 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48B82BFD.5030807@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=zajec5@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox