Re: 2.6.23-rc1: no setup signature found...

[Borislav Petkov <bbpetkov@yahoo.de>]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:12:09AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > 
> >> What distro/version of grub are you running?  
> > Debian unstable
> >> I'm wondering if there are
> >> some old version of grub out there which did the "load four sectors"
> >> way-anciently-obsolete crap; the other possibility that comes to mind is
> >> setting up the stack in an invalid manner.
> > grub version:
> > 
> > [boris@gollum:18:17:27:->  apt-cache show grub
> > Package: grub
> > Priority: optional
> > Section: admin
> > Installed-Size: 708
> > Maintainer: Grub Maintainers <pkg-grub-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
> > Architecture: i386
> > Version: 0.97-29
> > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.5-5), libncurses5 (>= 5.4-5)
> > Suggests: grub-doc, mdadm
> > Filename: pool/main/g/grub/grub_0.97-29_i386.deb
> > Size: 366884
> > MD5sum: 2da7a5942db06eaba046dff4615bcce9
> > SHA1: 7f4da793da209d011ce94fceebaebe0e5f08790f
> > SHA256: 2596782c08f1f7365e9935f687fef74c67d8702503188f22448db9f0ac98e18e
> > Description: GRand Unified Bootloader
> > ...
> 
> This concerns me deeply.  This is a current version of Grub which
> shouldn't have any silly 8K limitations.  Yet it appears to have a
> similar pathology over the ancient version Xudong just described.
> 
> The absolute best would be if we could replicate this in simulation
> (Bochs or Qemu); this would make it very simple to debug.  Would you be
> willing to try to do that?
sure, will do, however i'll be busy at work/travelling tomorrow but as soon as i
get home i'll whip up my qemu and run the kernel in question in it. However,
 Xudong said that grub 0.97 boots just fine on his machine and i think it'll be
 better to debug this right on the bare hardware (i.e. my laptop) ...?
 Suggestions ?

-- 
Regards/Gruß,
    Boris.