Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: check for and defend against BIOS memory corruption

[H. Peter Anvin]

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> hpa introduced the 64k idea, and we've all been repeating it;
> but I've not heard the reasoning behind it.  Is it a fundamental
> addressing limitation within the BIOS memory model?  Or a case
> that Windows treats the bottom 64k as scratch, so BIOS testers
> won't notice if they corrupt it?

I should point out that I have seen one particular bug quite a few times 
poking around with boot loaders: the BIOS accesses memory at an 
otherwise valid address, but with the segment base set to either zero or 
0x400 instead of whatever it should have been.

	-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/