On Fri, 11 Jul, at 01:18:43AM, Michael Brown wrote: > > The "...headers now include..." part was referring to the previously > merged patch to add the .bss section. > > I haven't actually looked at the code which performs the alignment; > I was going on hpa's concern that merely exposing init_size would be > insufficient due to the potential for alignment. My understanding > (possibly incorrect) was that the alignment was carried out using > something simple along the lines of: > > new_kernel_start = align ( kernel_start, kernel_alignment ); > memmove ( new_kernel_start, kernel_start, kernel_len ); > > i.e. that the memory used for alignment was not explicitly > allocated. If the EFI boot stub instead allocates space for the > aligned kernel using AllocatePages() (and allocates enough space for > the whole of init_size), then the problem I described does not > exist. Right, this shouldn't be a problem because we do in fact allocate space using the EFI boottime services in efi_relocate_kernel(), taking the alignment into account, and then perform the kernel image copy. I still think your change makes sense, I'm just inclined to delete the paragraph referring to the corruption bug (which we've established doesn't exist). -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
