similar to: [PATCH] ISOLINUX: Fix checksum calculation in lzo/prepcore.c

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3000 matches similar to: "[PATCH] ISOLINUX: Fix checksum calculation in lzo/prepcore.c"

2018 Jan 09
2
isolinux.bin checksum
Hi, i think i found a suspect in lzo/prepcore.c and it would indeed be a wrong range of checksumming (speculative congratulations to Ady). Looking at http://repo.or.cz/syslinux.git/blob/0d82b71304d596d80f3c4520f9dcf90048ca50b7:/lzo/prepcore.c it seems that this change in line 374 could yield correct checksums: unsigned int ptr; - for (ptr = 64; ptr < offset; ptr += 4) +
2018 Jan 12
1
isolinux.bin checksum
H, Ady wrote: > A_ The default checksum included in the tested isolinux.bin (offset 20, > 4-bytes-long) is the "correct" one (as oppose to the current situation, > since version 4.00). That's good news. > F_ In the tested isolinux.bin file, there are two additional bytes that > I found to be changed/affected by some ISO-building tools (e.g. > mkisofs), at
2018 Jan 08
2
isolinux.bin checksum
> Hi, > > Ady wrote: > > During May 2009, a commit by Peter deleted the checksumiso.pl file. The > > commit is: > > core: LZO compress the PM part of the core > > repo.or.cz/syslinux.git/commit/0d82b71304d596d80f3c4520f9dcf90048ca50b7 > > And so, since version 4.00, the 'code/checksumiso.pl' file is no longer > > included. > > How is
2018 Jan 09
0
isolinux.bin checksum
> Hi, > > i think i found a suspect in lzo/prepcore.c and it would indeed be a > wrong range of checksumming (speculative congratulations to Ady). Thank you Thomas for your replies and for looking into this issue. My part on the initial investigation that triggered this email thread is relatively small. Others deserve much more credit. I was/am providing not just my own report,
2018 Jan 13
1
Is this off topic?
I was thinking... Perhaps I should just change any "isolinux" term with some f*ing off-topic crap while maintaining the same proposed patch; then maybe we would get some relevant (re)action about this issue from The Syslinux Project? diff --git a/lzo/prepcore.c b/lzo/prepcore.c index 9147b2e4..b5ebe88b 100644 --- a/lzo/prepcore.c +++ b/lzo/prepcore.c @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ int main(int
2018 Jan 09
0
isolinux.bin checksum
Hi, Ady wrote: > Apparently, one of the consequences seems to be that the default > checksum included in isolinux.bin doesn't seem to help those > users/programs that, for whichever reason (e.g. user lacking > knowledge), do not patch the boot info table. I agree and still riddle about the reason. > So, my question is whether there is some intentional reason for these
2018 Jan 09
2
isolinux.bin checksum
Hi, Ady wrote: > This is a quote from Wonko/Jaclaz, who has also been investigation this > issue and deserves credit for it: > Ok, not that I understand the code, but what *somehow* happens is that > the "embedded" checksum in Isolinux.bin (starting from 4.00) is the > checksum of the WHOLE file (i.e. starting from offset 0 instead of 64) > at a time when: > 1)
2018 Jan 08
0
isolinux.bin checksum
Hi, Ady wrote: > During May 2009, a commit by Peter deleted the checksumiso.pl file. The > commit is: > core: LZO compress the PM part of the core > repo.or.cz/syslinux.git/commit/0d82b71304d596d80f3c4520f9dcf90048ca50b7 > And so, since version 4.00, the 'code/checksumiso.pl' file is no longer > included. > How is the checksum of isolinux.bin calculated since
2018 Jan 07
2
isolinux.bin checksum
Until Syslinux 3.86, isolinux.bin contained a checksum that was calculated by 'core/checksumiso.pl'. The checksum is related to the patching of the boot info table. During May 2009, a commit by Peter deleted the checksumiso.pl file. The commit is: core: LZO compress the PM part of the core repo.or.cz/syslinux.git/commit/0d82b71304d596d80f3c4520f9dcf90048ca50b7 And so, since
2010 Nov 30
2
Syslinux Digest, Vol 92, Issue 25
Sorry Gene, I got the version of binutils is 2.17. I download the latest Binutils to make the *objdump* and *objcopy*. with both of these utilities to create new pxelinux.raw. then, the error message shows me that, objcopy -O binary pxelinux.elf pxelinux.raw ../lzo/prepcore pxelinux.raw pxelinux.bin ../lzo/prepcore: pxelinux.raw: output too big (30165, max 0) make[1]: *** [pxelinux.bin] Error 1
2010 Mar 04
2
recompiling syslinux 4.00pre31
Hello, I try to recompile syslinux-4.00 pre31 on RHEL5 with gcc-4.1.2 and nasm 2.07. Because I'm looking for information about that gpxelinux->chain.c32 hd0 boot problem I added -DDEBUG=2 to com32/lib/Makefile I get: objdump -h pxelinux.elf > pxelinux.sec perl lstadjust.pl pxelinux.lsr pxelinux.sec pxelinux.lst objcopy -O binary pxelinux.elf pxelinux.raw ../lzo/prepcore
2010 Nov 28
1
how to compile syslinux-4.03
Hi, Is anyone compiled a new pxelinux.0 with syslinux code 4.03? right now, I got a error in compiling this version code, objdump -h pxelinux.elf > pxelinux.sec perl lstadjust.pl pxelinux.lsr pxelinux.sec pxelinux.lst objcopy -O binary pxelinux.elf pxelinux.raw ../lzo/prepcore pxelinux.raw pxelinux.bin ../lzo/prepcore: pxelinux.raw: output too big (30197, max 0) make[1]: *** [pxelinux.bin]
2017 Jun 30
4
[PATCH v2 0/4] Allow cross-building of syslinux
Hi together, this is the second version of my cross-compilation patch serie. I'm sending it in the hope to get an honest review, and possibly see the patches integrated upstream. Those patches allow to build syslinux using a toolchain different from the host one by explicitely using the host toolchain for the utilities that are required at build-time / on the build machine. I am using the
2019 Jul 19
0
[Patch] Fix lzo memory aliasing issue
Originated/took from Steffen Winterfeldt and Michael Matz in opensuse's Syslinux package: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1125616 "fix lzo memory aliasing issue" --- lzo/Makefile +++ lzo/Makefile @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ LIB = lzo.a BINS = prepcore +OPTFLAGS += -fno-strict-aliasing + all : makeoutputdirs $(BINS) makeoutputdirs: -- -Ady
2018 Jan 12
0
isolinux.bin checksum
> Ady wrote: > > This is a quote from Wonko/Jaclaz, who has also been investigation this > > issue and deserves credit for it: > > Ok, not that I understand the code, but what *somehow* happens is that > > the "embedded" checksum in Isolinux.bin (starting from 4.00) is the > > checksum of the WHOLE file (i.e. starting from offset 0 instead of 64) >
2016 Jan 30
2
binutils (objcopy?) >= 2.26 breaks syslinux (bios) build
Hi Fi $ rpm --query --file /usr/bin/objcopy binutils-2.25.1-9.fc24.x86_64 $ cd syslinux-7cd1ed6/ $ make bios ... make[3]: Leaving directory '/tmp/syslinux-7cd1ed6/bios/gpxe' make[2]: Leaving directory '/tmp/syslinux-7cd1ed6/bios' make[1]: Leaving directory '/tmp/syslinux-7cd1ed6' $ file bios/core/*.bin bios/core/isolinux.bin: data bios/core/isolinux-debug.bin:
2010 Dec 02
1
Syslinux Digest, Vol 93, Issue 1
All, Thanks for all your help. Now, I can compile the latest source code base on RedHat 5.5 after update nasm(to 2.09) and binutil(2.17). And *make spotless* before *make* under core/ directory. But with the new pxelinux.0, the PXEClient can not bootup. The error info, No valid file system found! And stuck in there. I think maybe the gcc cause the problem. My gcc version is 4.1.2. Thanks aaron
2013 Feb 04
1
syslinux 4.02 build problem
When i build syslinux.4.02 i get an error like this. I haven't been able to figure out what could be wrong. My gcc version is 4.1.2 and nasm is 2.10.07. Binutils is 2.17.50 I am compiling on xenserver 6.0 Thanks Alakesh 31186 bytes (31 kB) copied, 0.000315067 seconds, 99.0 MB/s nasm -f elf -Ox -g -F dwarf -DDATE_STR="'0x5110300a'" \
2014 Dec 30
2
efi build dependent on git update
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Michael Sumulong <msumulong at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > In efi/build-gnu-efi.sh, there's a "git submodule update --init" command > > which is causing a compilation issue on my build. I currently build in an > >
2015 Dec 01
1
[PATCH 0/2] Do not use the "red zone" on EFI
2015-11-30 14:14 UTC+01:00, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com>: >>>> >> The addition of the EFI_BUILD variable inside Makefiles could potentially >> affect scripts such as package builders, perhaps even the way the >> official (pre)release archives are built(?). > <<< > > I think the -mno-red-zone thing is a good catch, the rest of EFI