<cmetc...@mellanox.com>,"Paul E . McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>,Christopher Li <spa...@chrisli.org>,Dou Liyang <douly.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>,Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com>,Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>,Markus Trippelsdorf <mar...@trippelsdorf.de>,Peter Foley <pefol...@pefoley.com>,Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>,Tim Chen <tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com>,Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>,Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>,Matthew Wilcox <mawil...@microsoft.com>,Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.com>,Rob Landley <r...@landley.net>,Jiri Kosina <jkos...@suse.cz>,"H . J . Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com>,Paul Bolle <pebo...@tiscali.nl>,Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com>,Daniel Micay <danielmi...@gmail.com>,the arch/x86 maintainers <x...@kernel.org>,linux-cry...@vger.kernel.org,LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org,kvm list <k...@vger.kernel.org>,Linux PM list <linux...@vger.kernel.org>,linux-arch <linux-a...@vger.kernel.org>,linux-spa...@vger.kernel.org,Kernel Hardening <kernel-harden...@lists.openwall.com> From: h...@zytor.com Message-ID: <0ef6faaa-a99c-4f0d-9e4a-ad25e9395...@zytor.com>
On July 19, 2017 4:25:56 PM PDT, Thomas Garnier <thgar...@google.com> wrote: >On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:08 PM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote: >> On 07/19/17 15:47, Thomas Garnier wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:33 PM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> >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.
