On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:53:24PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:20:41PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > >
> > > struct x86_linux_header {
> > > @@ -206,7 +210,10 @@ struct x86_linux_header {
> > > #else
> > > uint32_t kernel_alignment; /* 0x230 */
> > > uint8_t relocatable_kernel; /* 0x234 */
> > > - uint8_t tail[32*1024 - 0x235]; /* 0x230 */
> > > + uint32_t cmdline_size; /* 0x235 */
> > > + uint32_t hardware_subarch; /* 0x239 */
> > > + uint64_t hardware_subarch_data; /* 0x23D */
> >
> > We need a padding of 3 bytes here too between relocatable kernel and
> > cmdline_size, in the same way as x86_linux_param_header?
> >
>
> Oh, good catch, yes we do need that. I expect it passed my testing because
> the
> garbage that wound up in cmdline_size was big enough to pass the check in
> do_bzImage_load.
>
> New patch, same summary as before, with the above correction
>
> Regards
> Neil
>
> Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
Thanks. Looks good to me.
Regards
Vivek
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
