Kexec command line length

[Neil Horman]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:08:15PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:59:47PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:53:23PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:57:53PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, I've got a new patch here.  In response to Bernhard and Viveks concerns,
> > > > I've added a few checks.  Bernhard, thank you for digging into the history of
> > > > the addition of the 2048 byte command line.  As I understand what you've posted
> > > > heres what we need to capture:
> > > > 
> > > > On X86:
> > > > 	Boot loader version >= 2.06
> > > > 		error if cmdline_len > setup_header.cmdline_size
> > > > 	2.05 > Boot loader version > 2.06
> > > > 		warn if cmdline_len > 255
> > > > 	Boot loader version < 2.05
> > > > 		error if cmdline_len > 255
> > > > 
> > > > on X86_64:
> > > > 	Boot loader version >= 2.04
> > > > 		error if cmdline_len > setup_header.cmdline_size
> > > 
> > > cmdline_size was introduced only in version 2.06. So this will run
> > > into trouble on x86_64 version 2.04 and 2.05, isn't it?
> > > 
> > Then how did version 2.04 on x86_64 determine its maximum command line length?
> > Or did it just assume a max length of 2048 bytes?
> 
> I think it just did not tell. There was no way for a kernel bzImage to
> tell boot-loader what's the supported command line size is (Pre 2.06).
> 
So, for 2.04 on x86_64, we should just assume a 2048 byte command line length
then?

Neil

> Thanks
> Vivek

-- 
/***************************************************
 *Neil Horman
 *Software Engineer
 *Red Hat, Inc.
 *nhorman at redhat.com
 *gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1
 *http://pgp.mit.edu
 ***************************************************/