Message ID | 20160219205806.GS25240@wotan.suse.de (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
On 02/19/2016 03:58 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:08:43AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > >> in xen_start_kernel(). Better yet, clear whole .bss. >> >> (This applies to the next patch as well). > So clear_bss() -- oh look, another call that xen_start_kernel() could have made > good use of. :) Can you send a respective patch I can old into this series? > I'm afraid it is by no means obvious to me where it would be safe to do this on > xen_start_kernel(). OK, I'll test it next week, it really should be done irrespective of what you are doing here. -boris
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:17:27PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > > On 02/19/2016 03:58 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:08:43AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > > >>in xen_start_kernel(). Better yet, clear whole .bss. > >> > >>(This applies to the next patch as well). > >So clear_bss() -- oh look, another call that xen_start_kernel() could have made > >good use of. :) Can you send a respective patch I can old into this series? > >I'm afraid it is by no means obvious to me where it would be safe to do this on > >xen_start_kernel(). > > OK, I'll test it next week, it really should be done irrespective of > what you are doing here. OK so it can go in separately? Luis
On 02/19/2016 07:42 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:17:27PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> >> On 02/19/2016 03:58 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:08:43AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> >>>> in xen_start_kernel(). Better yet, clear whole .bss. >>>> >>>> (This applies to the next patch as well). >>> So clear_bss() -- oh look, another call that xen_start_kernel() could have made >>> good use of. :) Can you send a respective patch I can old into this series? >>> I'm afraid it is by no means obvious to me where it would be safe to do this on >>> xen_start_kernel(). >> OK, I'll test it next week, it really should be done irrespective of >> what you are doing here. > OK so it can go in separately? Yes, I'll send it as a separate patch. -boris
diff --git a/tools/lguest/lguest.c b/tools/lguest/lguest.c index ff0aa580c6e1..0aa75af6e862 100644 --- a/tools/lguest/lguest.c +++ b/tools/lguest/lguest.c @@ -3357,6 +3357,12 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) /* Tell the entry path not to try to reload segment registers. */ boot->hdr.loadflags |= KEEP_SEGMENTS; + /* We don't support tboot */ + boot->tboot_addr = 0; + + /* Ensure this is 0 to prevent apm from loading */ + boot->apm_bios_info.version = 0; + /* We tell the kernel to initialize the Guest. */ tell_kernel(start);