23.03.2017 14:41, Rodrigo V. G. пишет:
> On 3/23/17, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 22.03.2017 22:23, Daniel Kiper пишет:
>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 04:43:35PM +0100, Rodrigo Vali??a Guti??rrez
>>> wrote:
>> They also may not match if virtual address != physical address, but
On 3/23/17, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 22.03.2017 22:23, Daniel Kiper пишет:
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 04:43:35PM +0100, Rodrigo Vali??a Guti??rrez
>> wrote:
> They also may not match if virtual address != physical address, but as
> we do not establish any address
22.03.2017 17:33, Daniel Kiper пишет:
Yes. @Daniel, note that tags 9, 10 are not even documented.
>>>
>>> Do you mean MULTIBOOT_TAG_TYPE_ELF_SECTIONS and MULTIBOOT_TAG_TYPE_APM?
>>
>> No, I mean
>>
>> #define MULTIBOOT_HEADER_TAG_ENTRY_ADDRESS_EFI64 9
>> #define
22.03.2017 22:23, Daniel Kiper пишет:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 04:43:35PM +0100, Rodrigo Vali??a Guti??rrez wrote:
They also may not match if virtual address != physical address, but as
we do not establish any address translation when launching image, this
probably is going to
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 04:43:35PM +0100, Rodrigo Vali??a Guti??rrez wrote:
> >> They also may not match if virtual address != physical address, but as
> >> we do not establish any address translation when launching image, this
> >> probably is going to fail. Still would be good to have this
>> They also may not match if virtual address != physical address, but as
>> we do not establish any address translation when launching image, this
>> probably is going to fail. Still would be good to have this assumption
>> explicitly listed in multiboot2 manual.
>
> I think that we should state
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 03:50:44PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry for late reply but I am busy.
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 12:02:38PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> >> 17.03.2017 22:53, Ahmed,
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for late reply but I am busy.
>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 12:02:38PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 17.03.2017 22:53, Ahmed, Safayet (GE Global Research, US) ??:
>> > Hello again,
>> >
>> > I had
Hi,
Sorry for late reply but I am busy.
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 12:02:38PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 17.03.2017 22:53, Ahmed, Safayet (GE Global Research, US) ??:
> > Hello again,
> >
> > I had a question on the function, "grub_multiboot_load_elf(32/64)".
> >
17.03.2017 22:53, Ahmed, Safayet (GE Global Research, US) пишет:
> Hello again,
>
> I had a question on the function, "grub_multiboot_load_elf(32/64)".
> (grub/grub_core/loader/multiboot_elfxx.c: line 54)
>
> As a part of parsing an ELF image, the above-named function copies
> the section header
Hello again,
I had a question on the function, "grub_multiboot_load_elf(32/64)".
(grub/grub_core/loader/multiboot_elfxx.c: line 54)
As a part of parsing an ELF image, the above-named function copies the section
header table into memory, and copies "unloaded" sections into memory (lines 199
-
11 matches
Mail list logo