On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:01:02 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2026-01-08 01:25, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On x86_64, the physical placement of the kernel is independent from its
> > mapping in the 'High Kernel Mapping' range. This means that even a
> > position dependent kernel built without boot-time relocation support can
> > run from any suitably aligned physical address, and there is no need to
> > make this behavior dependent on whether or not the kernel is virtually
> > relocatable.
> >
> > On i386, the situation is different, given that the physical and virtual
> > load offsets must be equal, and so only a relocatable kernel can be
> > loaded at a physical address that deviates from its build-time default.
> >
> > Clarify this in Kconfig and in the code, and advertise the 64-bit
> > bzImage as loadable at any physical offset regardless of whether
> > CONFIG_RELOCATABLE is set. In practice, this makes little difference,
> > given that it defaults to 'y' and is a prerequisite for EFI_STUB and
> > RANDOMIZE_BASE, but it will help with some future refactoring of the
> > relocation code.
> >
>
> I don't see any reason to support non-relocatable kernels anymore. In fact, in
> a patchset I am working on I have already removed it.
For just 64bit, or 32bit as well?
The 'bloat' for 32bit will be higher due to the lack of pc-relative
addressing.
David
>
> -hpa
>
>
