>>> On 20.09.16 at 20:26, wrote:
> However, if you care I would ask why do you use
> 1 MiB limit instead of 640 KiB in xen/arch/x86/efi/efi-boot.h? I do not
> say this is huge mistake but I am curious why not 640 KiB? I suppose that
> there was a reason for it but I cannot find anything about that
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:23:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 20.09.16 at 14:11, wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:15:10AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 14.09.16 at 10:23, wrote:
> >> > Additionally, my investigation has shown that there are no bound checks
> >> > in
> >> > l
>>> On 20.09.16 at 14:11, wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:15:10AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 14.09.16 at 10:23, wrote:
>> > Additionally, my investigation has shown that there are no bound checks in
>> > low memory allocation machinery for trampoline (by the way, in BIOS path we
>> >
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:15:10AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 14.09.16 at 10:23, wrote:
> > Starting from the beginning it looks that there are "soft" limits enforced
> > in BIOS early boot code looking for usable low memory region. Hight limit
> > is set at 640 KiB and low at 256 KiB. Thi
>>> On 14.09.16 at 10:23, wrote:
> Starting from the beginning it looks that there are "soft" limits enforced
> in BIOS early boot code looking for usable low memory region. Hight limit
> is set at 640 KiB and low at 256 KiB. This means that if a value from a given
> source which describes low mem
