lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] Randomize kernel base address on boot
From
Date
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 16:01 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 04:31:45PM -0400, Dan Rosenberg wrote:
>
> [..]
> > ==============================================================
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > index 880fcb6..999ea82 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > @@ -1548,8 +1548,8 @@ config PHYSICAL_START
> > If kernel is a not relocatable (CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=n) then
> > bzImage will decompress itself to above physical address and
> > run from there. Otherwise, bzImage will run from the address where
> > - it has been loaded by the boot loader and will ignore above physical
> > - address.
> > + it has been loaded by the boot loader, using the above physical
> > + address as a lower bound.
> >
> > In normal kdump cases one does not have to set/change this option
> > as now bzImage can be compiled as a completely relocatable image
> > @@ -1595,7 +1595,31 @@ config RELOCATABLE
> >
> > Note: If CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y, then the kernel runs from the address
> > it has been loaded at and the compile time physical address
> > - (CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START) is ignored.
> > + (CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START) is solely used as a lower bound.
> > +
>
> This does not sound too good. Overloading the definition of PHYSICAL_START
> with minimum address. The very definition of relocatable kernel is that
> it should be able to run from the physical address it has been loaded
> at (subjected to alignment constraints).
>
> So I don't think overloading CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START definition is a good
> idea. In fact there is no reason that why kdump kernels should not run
> and boot below 16MB. So limiting those kernels to not load and run
> below 16MB is does not sound like good option to me.
>

I'm going to revisit this part of the patch and think of a better way to
do this.

> Also randomization of kernel load address at run time will probably have
> some issues with crashkernel=X@Y address syntax. So far user knew what
> address first kernel is booting from and user could speicy where to
> reserve memory. Now it might happen that user specified some memory
> to reserve and kernel decided to occupy that space resulting in failed
> memory reservation for crash kernel.
>

Ok, added to the list of things to figure out. Thanks.

> Thanks
> Vivek




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-26 22:09    [W:0.268 / U:2.288 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site