<[email protected]>,"Paul E . McKenney" <[email protected]>,Andrew Morton <[email protected]>,Christopher Li <[email protected]>,Dou Liyang <[email protected]>,Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]>,Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>,Markus Trippelsdorf <[email protected]>,Peter Foley <[email protected]>,Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>,Tim Chen <[email protected]>,Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]>,Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>,Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>,Michal Hocko <[email protected]>,Rob Landley <[email protected]>,Jiri Kosina <[email protected]>,"H . J . Lu" <[email protected]>,Paul Bolle <[email protected]>,Baoquan He <[email protected]>,Daniel Micay <[email protected]>,the arch/x86 maintainers <[email protected]>,[email protected],LKML <[email protected]>,[email protected],kvm list <[email protected]>,Linux PM list <[email protected]>,linux-arch <[email protected]>,[email protected],Kernel Hardening <[email protected]> From: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]>
On July 19, 2017 4:25:56 PM PDT, Thomas Garnier <[email protected]> wrote: >On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:08 PM, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 07/19/17 15:47, Thomas Garnier wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:33 PM, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> >wrote: >>>> On 07/18/17 15:33, Thomas Garnier wrote: >>>>> The x86 relocation tool generates a list of 32-bit signed >integers. There >>>>> was no need to use 64-bit integers because all addresses where >above the 2G >>>>> top of the memory. >>>>> >>>>> This change add a large-reloc option to generate 64-bit unsigned >integers. >>>>> It can be used when the kernel plan to go below the top 2G and >32-bit >>>>> integers are not enough. >>>> >>>> Why on Earth? This would only be necessary if the *kernel itself* >was >>>> more than 2G, which isn't going to happen for the forseeable >future. >>> >>> Because the relocation integer is an absolute address, not an offset >>> in the binary. Next iteration, I can try using a 32-bit offset for >>> everyone. >> >> It is an absolute address *as the kernel was originally linked*, for >> obvious reasons. > >Sure when the kernel was just above 0xffffffff80000000, it doesn't >work when it goes down to 0xffffffff00000000. That's why using an >offset might make more sense in general. > >> >> -hpa >> What is the motivation for changing the pre linked address at all? -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
