Matt Domsch wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 12:00:37PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Matt Domsch wrote:
No reason. I was just trying to be careful, not leaving data in the
upper bits of those registers going uninitialized. If we know they're
not being used ever, then it's not a problem. But I don't think
that's the source of the command line size concern, is it?
No, it's treating the command line as a fixed buffer, as opposed to a
null-terminated string. This was always a bug, by the way.
OK, I'll look at fixing that, and using %esi throughout.
There is a lot of weirdness in this code; it's broken in an enormous
amount of ways (sorry, Matt). This comment, for example:
pushl %esi
cmpl $0, %cs:cmd_line_ptr
jz done_cl
movl %cs:(cmd_line_ptr), %esi
# ds:esi has the pointer to the command line now
... doesn't handle the old boot protocol, and doesn't at all deal with
the fact that cmd_line_ptr is an absolute address, and not at all
relative to SETUPSEG, which is the normal value for %ds at this point.
For the old protocol, this is a 16-bit pointer which is relative to
INITSEG (not SETUPSEG), but this code just completely ignores it.
I'll hack up a patch for this.
-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]
