On 6 October 2014 21:33, Peter Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:13:01PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 17 July 2014 16:09, Mark Salter wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 23:13 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> >> On 16 July 2014 23:03, Mark Salter wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 2
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:13:01PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 17 July 2014 16:09, Mark Salter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 23:13 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On 16 July 2014 23:03, Mark Salter wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 22:38 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> >> On 16 Jul
On 17 July 2014 16:09, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 23:13 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 16 July 2014 23:03, Mark Salter wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 22:38 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> >> On 16 July 2014 21:45, Mark Salter wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 16:53 +010
On 17 July 2014 16:09, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 23:13 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 16 July 2014 23:03, Mark Salter wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 22:38 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> >> On 16 July 2014 21:45, Mark Salter wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 16:53 +010
On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 23:13 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 16 July 2014 23:03, Mark Salter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 22:38 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On 16 July 2014 21:45, Mark Salter wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 16:53 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Jul 16, 20
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
> On 16 July 2014 21:45, Mark Salter wrote:
>> On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 16:53 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:51:37PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 12:58 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> > > Afte
On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 22:38 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 16 July 2014 21:45, Mark Salter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 16:53 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:51:37PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 12:58 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> > >
On 16 July 2014 23:03, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 22:38 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 16 July 2014 21:45, Mark Salter wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 16:53 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:51:37PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 2014-07-
On 16 July 2014 21:45, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 16:53 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:51:37PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 12:58 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> > > After the EFI stub has done its business, it jumps into the kernel
On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 16:53 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:51:37PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 12:58 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > After the EFI stub has done its business, it jumps into the kernel by
> > > branching
> > > to offset #0 of the l
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:51:37PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 12:58 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > After the EFI stub has done its business, it jumps into the kernel by
> > branching
> > to offset #0 of the loaded Image, which is where it expects to find the
> > header
>
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 12:58 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> After the EFI stub has done its business, it jumps into the kernel by
> branching
> to offset #0 of the loaded Image, which is where it expects to find the header
> containing a 'branch to stext' instruction.
>
> However, the header is no
After the EFI stub has done its business, it jumps into the kernel by branching
to offset #0 of the loaded Image, which is where it expects to find the header
containing a 'branch to stext' instruction.
However, the header is not covered by any PE/COFF section, so the header may
not actually be lo
13 matches
Mail list logo