Re: Extending boot protocol & bzImage for paravirt_ops

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Do we care particularly? If 8 bytes is enough for the subarch, do we
>> care whether its a pointer or literal? After all, this is just a private
>> channel between the bootloader and some subarch-specific piece of code
>> in the kernel.
>>
>>     
>
> I see two options: either we make it a pointer *and a length* so that a
> loader can reshuffle it at will (that also implies no absolute pointers
> within the data), or it's an opaque cookie anyway.
>   

No, it has to be completely opaque.  It might be a pointer to some
special shared memory or something, and not movable.

    J
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux