Re: [PATCH] Remove lilo-loads-only-five-sectors-of-zImage-fixup from setup.S
From: Alexander van Heukelum
Date: Wed Oct 11 2006 - 15:37:36 EST
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:38:09AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >The real-mode kernel (on i386 and x86_64) checks if the bootloader
> >loaded it correctly. Apparantly, very old versions of LILO disregarded
> >the setupsects field in the bootsector and always just loaded the first
> >five sectors. If the kernel is compiled as a zImage, the real-mode
> >kernel is able to rectify the situation. At least it was, until the code
> >to do so was moved to the eighth sector in order to make space for more
> >E820 entries (commit: f9ba70535dc12d9eb57d466a2ecd749e16eca866). This
> >occured on 1 May 2005 and as far as I know, noone has complained yet.
> >This patch removes the checks for the signature and the fixup code
> >completely.
> >
> >Comments? Which bootloaders are still in use? Kill zImage?
> >
>
> Andrew asked me to comment on this...
>
> This removes support for boot loaders that did not understand boot
> loader protocol version 2.00 or later. This probably includes very
> early versions of LILO as well as the long-since obsolete Bootlin and
> Shoelace. Those loaders were unable to load bzImages as well.
>
> I have been urging that we kill zImage for a long time. It is virtually
> impossible to build a kernel today that will fit inside the zImage 512K
> compressed limitation.
>
> It would be useful for setup.S to halt with a message if such an early
> bootloader is detected, however. This would have to be parked in the
> first 2K of the setup area, and can simply be detected by looking for
> zero in type_of_loader.
Hi!
The patch should not alter behaviour for any bootloader that takes
setupsects into account. It just removes 'support' for bootloaders that
have the size of the setup code hardcoded to 4 sectors.
The current version of setup.S already checks if the bootloader
understands boot protocol 2.00+ in the case of a big kernel, but that
code is also after the 2k-mark. The zero-page still has some unused
space between offsets 0x230 and 0x28f. Shall I put/move some code there
to check unconditionally if the type_of_loader has been set?
I'll do that if no objections are put forward.
Thanks,
Alexander
>
> -hpa
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/