Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I think it should be sparsely used, but stuff like simple end markers is pretty
much what it's good for.
The main reason I want to avoid adding another header field is that the header
is a finite resource; one of the many poor decisions in its original design was
using a 2-byte jump at the top, so address 0x281 is the end of the universe.
That was fixed long ago (by having a 4 byte reserved field in the middle) that
we can do a two byte jump and then do a farther jump from there to the 16bit
code. So as long as we actually use discipline and really reserve
the field for a further jump there should be no need for 0x281 being the end
of the universe.
That's not the only complication. The thing that concern me more is
boot loaders using the jump as a length indicator, and there is really
very little chance to test that out safely, except perhaps by breaking
it immediately (by adding a 16-byte jump at the end; that way we provide
a minimum of overlap for boot loader authors.)
That being said, I don't see any such field (bootsect_kludge could be
recycled, arguably, and pad2 is three bytes which is enough for a 16-bit
jump.)
At the moment, though, that would only push the maximum from 0x281 to
0x290, then we run into the next field in struct boot_params. Although
this field can also be relocated over time, it once again shows that
breaking this particular limit is nontrivial, and that we're better off
trying to avoid pushing it.
However, with a little discipline I think we can make 0x281 last us for
the usable lifetime of this format. In the 10 years since the 2.00
format was created, we have only added 36 bytes of header, and we have
57 bytes left (plus 5 bytes of pad and 6 bytes of recyclable field.)
When we get closer to full, if we haven't already created a mechanism
making field additions obsolete I think we would be better off creating
a pointer to a secondary header than trying to break the limitations
involved in the current header format.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
