[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52556486.9080109@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 07:13:26 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Dave Anderson <anderson@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Aaron Durbin <adurbin@...gle.com>,
Eric Northup <digitaleric@...gle.com>, Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...gle.com>, Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>,
"Discussion list for crash utility usage, maintenance and development" <crash-utility@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] x86, kaslr: report kernel offset on panic
On 10/09/2013 03:04 AM, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't understand why relocation size cannot be calculated when
>>> CONFIG_PHYSICALSTART > CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN. Could you explain that?
>>
>> I just meant that when CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START > CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN,
>> the 32-bit x86 kernel
>> gets relocated (like the secondary kdump kernel), but that information
>> is not readily available
>> from the vmlinux/vmcore pair.
>>
>
> My understanding on CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN was that starting address of
> kernel text area
> is always rounded up to CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN, only. Your explanation
> would be part I don't
> understand well. I'll reconsider it locally...
>
If CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START == CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN, then it is very
likely that the kernel (in the absence of kASLR) will be run at the
CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START address, as the initial loading address, usually 1
MB, will be rounded up to CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN.
Since CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START is the unrelocated linking address, they end
up matching.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
