[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 01/14] x86: move xen ELF end of image to 16 MiB
>>> On 26.09.16 at 13:34, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 04:39:37AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 23.09.16 at 23:47, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > It seems that from xen ELF image POV _end symbol properly determine >> > image end. However, taking into account that initial Xen image mapping >> > covers 16 MiB it looks that it is not sufficient. Currently bootloader >> > potentially may load xen ELF image at 1 MiB and let's say put Linux >> > kernel or initrd at 8 MiB. Nothing forbids it. This means that initially >> > Xen image mapping may cover not only Xen image but also loaded modules. >> >> Okay, up to here you just describe the state of things, which is fine. >> >> > So, let's move end of xen ELF image to 16 MiB. This way we avoid above >> > mentioned issue because bootloader will be forced to allocate 15 MiB >> > memory region for image. Then it (bootloader) would not be able to put >> > in this place anything else because from its POV simply this memory >> > region will be allocated and used. >> >> But here you state what the patch does, but not what problem you >> solve. And my problem here is that I don't see any problem to be >> solved: There may be an overlap of address ranges, but I don't see >> that memory being used in two different way. In fact the 16Mb >> mapping is just a mapping, without us using anything outside the >> Xen image range afaics. > > However, this begs the question: Why do we map 16 MiB in Xen image address > space if we do not expect anything sensible beyond the _end symbol? Because it allows the page tables to be pre-populated at build time? > Should > not we stop just beyond the _end at 2 MiB boundary? This way if something > accesses anything between _end and 16 MiB via Xen image mapping then way of > failure is more predictable than now. But that's not necessarily better - we might end up with an early boot crash with a black screen. > IIRC, this region (from _end to 16 MiB) > is not even zeroed, so, unexpected things may happen. As long as it doesn't get accessed I don't see what unpredictable things you expect to happen. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |