grub-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Improve FreeDOS direct loading support compatibility.


From: C. Masloch
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve FreeDOS direct loading support compatibility.
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 23:37:45 +0200
User-agent: Opera Mail/12.02 (Win32)

On 2012-09-09 21:49 +0200, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:

+  {
+    grub_relocator_chunk_t ch;
+ err = grub_relocator_alloc_chunk_addr (rel, &ch, GRUB_FREEDOS_BPB_ADDR,
+                                          GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_SIZE);

I don't understand this. Shouldn't it be at 0x7c00 ?

This is intended to be at 0x27a00, not 0x7c00. GRUB_FREEDOS_BPB_ADDR should evaluate to 0x27a00. I'll try to explain the reasoning for this - if any of the following is unclear, please feel free to ask for clarification. Sorry that it's so verbose; I suggest you read the summary first if you prefer.

-

The FreeDOS kernel's original boot loader (boot/boot.asm in the kernel's repo) first relocates itself to linear address 2_7A00h (formed as segmented destination address 1FE0h:7C00h, the segmented source address being 0000h:7C00h). This is an adjustment from other/earlier loaders that left the (boot sector) loader at (linear) 0_7C00h and thus restricted the next stage* to be loaded from disk to about 29 KiB, if it is to be loaded into contiguous space starting at a lower address (used to be 0_0700h, now 0_0600h for current FreeDOS kernel releases). With this adjustment, the limit is increased to about 157 KiB.

[* Earlier DOS-C (ie FreeDOS kernel) releases loaded a subsequent IPL stage first, possibly motivated by this ca. 29 KiB limit as well. Current FreeDOS kernel releases typically directly load the whole kernel.]

In principle, GRUB could of course write the BPB anywhere up to the top of "conventional memory" (below A_0000h, or below an EBDA if present there) and incidentally raise the file size limit. (Or potentially the kernel could be loaded to eg 0_8000h with the BPB placed somewhere below that, also raising the file size limit - however 0_0600h is clearly documented as the canonical load address of the current protocol and the kernel might rely on it.)

However, various programs might assume that the FreeDOS load protocol places the BPB at exactly 2_7A00h (with ss:bp and ds:bp specifying 1FE0h:7C00h). I don't know whether the current kernel itself relies on this. I'm aware that at least MetaBoot** does search at that particular (linear) address, so placing the BPB/sector there is necessary (though not sufficient) for it. (MetaBoot's only purpose is to reload a different next-stage file, hence loading it from GRUB isn't important because GRUB can instead directly load the desired next-stage file. I merely mentioned MetaBoot for its assumption that this particular position is implied by the load protocol.)

[** MetaBoot belongs to the MetaKern loader for FreeDOS, developed by FreeDOS kernel maintainer Eric Auer. It is covered by the GPL 2 with an additional loading exception/permission, and distributed as part of FreeDOS.]

In addition, arguably there is little use in raising the file size limit above what the original loader can work with. This differs from my opinion, but might be a relevant view for GRUB to consider.

-

So, summing it all up, the resulting 2_7A00h address of the BPB is to most closely mimic the original loader, which arrived there to partially raise a limit caused by that loader's size constraints (from the original 29 KiB limit to 157 KiB). That level of compatibility might be unnecessary (for the kernel itself), but apart from reproducing the original's more recent file size limit there is no harm in it.

Note that in GRUB's ntldr.c, the BPB is written at 0_7C00h and no equivalent file size limit exists because the next stage (NTLDR) file is loaded starting at a higher address, 2_0000h.

Do you plan to contribute more? If so I'd prefer to make you sign a
copyright assignment, otherwise this patch can go in, once it's clear
with addresses.

I could gladly sign an assignment, however I don't yet plan to contribute more.

Regards,
Chris Masloch



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]