Greetings:
I upgraded to version 2.6.23 and had a fun time figuring out the source of
this boot failure message on my x86 system:
This kernel requires an i<random integer>86 CPU, but only detected an
i<smaller random integer>86 CPU.
It turns out that my version of lilo (lilo -V gives version 21) doesn't set
up the stack and data segment registers in a compatible manner before
entering the new 16-bit real mode kernel loader code. This problem is new
to the 2.6.23 series.
Parts of the 16-bit real mode loader code are now being compiled as C code
with gcc in 32 bit mode passing the .code16gcc directive to the assembler to
correct the stack frames to 16 bit. This kludge won't work unless all the
16-bit segment registers are set to the same value. Gcc only manipulates
the offset of the address and doesn't know anything about segment registers
or segment override prefixes. My lilo was setting SS=0x8000, DS=0x9000, and
SP=0xB000 before entering the kernel loader. This makes stack automatics
unreachable from the data segment without segment override prefixes.
I was tempted to patch the kernel code, but instead decided to try
"upgrading" lilo to grub-0.97 and found that grub works just fine. This
also has the significant advantage that we won't need those nasty as86 and
ld86 things any more since lilo was the last package on our systems that
used them.
However, it would probably be a good idea to modify the kernel loader to
lock out interrupts and explicitly set up the stack in its assembly startup
code to insure that the stack is located correctly above the code in the
same segment, rather than relying on the boot loader to do the right thing.
The existing setup code already insures that the other segment registers are
equal but omits the stack segment register. Also, because lilo (and
others?) loads the data/code segment at 0X90000, the stack pointer would
have to be set no higher than 0XA000 to avoid potential overwrites of the
EBDA. But I believe from my look at the code that the data/code sits below
0X8000 in the segment, so this should be fine.
If others think this is a good thing, I will test and submit a patch.
Please CC me directly as I am no longer subscribed to the list.
Best regards,
Joseph
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:07:31 -0600 (CST) Joseph Parmelee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Greetings:
>
> I upgraded to version 2.6.23 and had a fun time figuring out the source of
> this boot failure message on my x86 system:
>
> This kernel requires an i<random integer>86 CPU, but only detected an
> i<smaller random integer>86 CPU.
>
> It turns out that my version of lilo (lilo -V gives version 21) doesn't set
> up the stack and data segment registers in a compatible manner before
> entering the new 16-bit real mode kernel loader code. This problem is new
> to the 2.6.23 series.
hm, one of my test boxes runs
vmm:/home/akpm> lilo -V
LILO version 21.4-4
and I haven't had any such problems.
> Parts of the 16-bit real mode loader code are now being compiled as C code
> with gcc in 32 bit mode passing the .code16gcc directive to the assembler to
> correct the stack frames to 16 bit. This kludge won't work unless all the
> 16-bit segment registers are set to the same value. Gcc only manipulates
> the offset of the address and doesn't know anything about segment registers
> or segment override prefixes. My lilo was setting SS=0x8000, DS=0x9000, and
> SP=0xB000 before entering the kernel loader. This makes stack automatics
> unreachable from the data segment without segment override prefixes.
>
> I was tempted to patch the kernel code, but instead decided to try
> "upgrading" lilo to grub-0.97 and found that grub works just fine. This
> also has the significant advantage that we won't need those nasty as86 and
> ld86 things any more since lilo was the last package on our systems that
> used them.
>
> However, it would probably be a good idea to modify the kernel loader to
> lock out interrupts and explicitly set up the stack in its assembly startup
> code to insure that the stack is located correctly above the code in the
> same segment, rather than relying on the boot loader to do the right thing.
> The existing setup code already insures that the other segment registers are
> equal but omits the stack segment register. Also, because lilo (and
> others?) loads the data/code segment at 0X90000, the stack pointer would
> have to be set no higher than 0XA000 to avoid potential overwrites of the
> EBDA. But I believe from my look at the code that the data/code sits below
> 0X8000 in the segment, so this should be fine.
>
> If others think this is a good thing, I will test and submit a patch.
I think this is a good thing ;)
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> Parts of the 16-bit real mode loader code are now being compiled as C code
>> with gcc in 32 bit mode passing the .code16gcc directive to the assembler to
>> correct the stack frames to 16 bit. This kludge won't work unless all the
>> 16-bit segment registers are set to the same value. Gcc only manipulates
>> the offset of the address and doesn't know anything about segment registers
>> or segment override prefixes. My lilo was setting SS=0x8000, DS=0x9000, and
>> SP=0xB000 before entering the kernel loader. This makes stack automatics
>> unreachable from the data segment without segment override prefixes.
>>
>> I was tempted to patch the kernel code, but instead decided to try
>> "upgrading" lilo to grub-0.97 and found that grub works just fine. This
>> also has the significant advantage that we won't need those nasty as86 and
>> ld86 things any more since lilo was the last package on our systems that
>> used them.
>>
>> However, it would probably be a good idea to modify the kernel loader to
>> lock out interrupts and explicitly set up the stack in its assembly startup
>> code to insure that the stack is located correctly above the code in the
>> same segment, rather than relying on the boot loader to do the right thing.
>> The existing setup code already insures that the other segment registers are
>> equal but omits the stack segment register. Also, because lilo (and
>> others?) loads the data/code segment at 0X90000, the stack pointer would
>> have to be set no higher than 0XA000 to avoid potential overwrites of the
>> EBDA. But I believe from my look at the code that the data/code sits below
>> 0X8000 in the segment, so this should be fine.
>>
>> If others think this is a good thing, I will test and submit a patch.
>
> I think this is a good thing ;)
>
Not quite so fast. The entry value of SS:SP is actually part of the
protocol (an upper memory boundary), although for 2.01+ one could argue
it is redundant with the heap_end field in the header.
I'm rather confused which particular LILO this would possibly be,
especially given the oddball version number. The boot protocol was
pretty much formalized by Werner Amsberger (sp?), the original LILO
author, with contributions from Hans Lermen and myself. It hasn't
changed in this area.
If this was a LILO that someone "cleverly broke" I'd like to understand
the nature of it, so we can work around it properly. I see a couple of
options:
- If protocol >= 2.01, force (e)sp to match the heap_end field of the
setup structure. For < 2.01, what to do?
- Pray and hope the value of SP is sane to start out with in the correct SS.
- Declare the "cleverly broken" version of LILO not so cleverly broken.
For what it's worth, the old code, for protocol < 2.02, the boot code
would simply overwrite %ss, leaving %sp unchanged (alternative #2.) So
this configuration was always buggy. There is a comment in the old code
(setup.S, line 655) that "after this the stack should not be used", but
we then go right into the A20 code which does a bunch of subroutine calls.
I think at this point that if protocol >= 2.01 and CAN_USE_HEAP, we
should set %ss:%sp to that, otherwise fall back to simply setting %ss
and hope that %sp is set to something sane. I don't like it, but I
don't see any better alternative.
-hpa
-hpa
[Ancient LILO boot problem]
Joseph, could you try this patch on your ancient-LILO setup?
-hpa
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> [Ancient LILO boot problem]
>
> Joseph, could you try this patch on your ancient-LILO setup?
>
Actually, please try this one instead.
-hpa
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> [Ancient LILO boot problem]
>>
>> Joseph, could you try this patch on your ancient-LILO setup?
>>
>
> Actually, please try this one instead.
>
> -hpa
>
This patch will work in my particular case, though it appears to violate the
rules about getting too close to the EBDA (SP=0xB000 on entry).
The boot loader is responsible for loading the kernel loader at a suitable
location in low memory, but I don't understand why the boot loader should be
involved in setting the stack at all. If we explicitly allocate the stack
as part of the .data segment, why not just play it safe and in all cases
fully set up the stack in header.S? This insures that the stack pointer is
not zero, is as low as possible to stay out of the EBDA, and that ss=ds;
quite irrespective of what the boot loader does.
What am I missing?
Regards,
Joseph
Please CC me directly as I am no longer subscribed to the list.
Joseph Parmelee wrote:
>
> This patch will work in my particular case, though it appears to violate
> the rules about getting too close to the EBDA (SP=0xB000 on entry).
>
> The boot loader is responsible for loading the kernel loader at a suitable
> location in low memory, but I don't understand why the boot loader
> should be
> involved in setting the stack at all. If we explicitly allocate the stack
> as part of the .data segment, why not just play it safe and in all cases
> fully set up the stack in header.S? This insures that the stack pointer is
> not zero, is as low as possible to stay out of the EBDA, and that ss=ds;
> quite irrespective of what the boot loader does.
>
> What am I missing?
>
What you're missing is that "just loading into a suitable location in
low memory" isn't a sufficient condition. This is something that one
finds out very quickly trying to do boot loader work.
Heap and stack control the amount of functionality that is available,
and therefore the protocol allows them to be dynamic.
Anyway, the final version of the patch that I sent you privately uses
this logic:
- If heap size is properly reported, use it.
- Otherwise, if %ss == %ds, then use the stack pointer as entered.
- Otherwise, use the minimum stack.
This seems like a fairly reasonable compromise, especially since
anything even remotely modern will be handled by the first clause.
-hpa