On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:07:02PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: > On 15/11/13 15:56, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > Clear unused registers before jumping into an image. This way > > loaded image could not assume that any register has an specific > > info about earlier running Xen hypervisor. However, it also > > does not mean that the image may expect that a given register > > is zeroed. The image MUST assume that every register has a random > > value or in other words it is uninitialized or has undefined state. > > I think this, where the specification (registers undefined) differs from > the implementation (registers zeroed), is the worst option. > > I also think it is more likely for an image to inadvertently rely on a > zero value that whatever junk Xen has left behind. I do not agree with you but respect your opinion. So could you provide a patch with a comment why our implementation deviate from our reference implementation (I think about Linux one) and even we use kexec-tools designed for Linux implementation which does things mentioned above? I hope that this solve this last, widely discussed issue. Daniel
