Booting/linux-bootstrap-1.md
text:

where 0x10ffef is equal to 1MB + 64KB - 16b . . . Since 2^20 = 1048576 is 1MB.

0x10ffef = 1114095
1MB + 64KB - 16b = 1114096 ((2^20) + (64 × 2^10) − 16) or 2^20

0x10ffef != 1MB + 64KB - 16b

maximum address = 0x10ffef
2^20 = address 0 - 0x10ffef

right:

where 0x10ffef is equal to (1MB + 64KB - 16b) - 1 . . . Since `2^20 - 1 =

As of 5cdbd57de09b64f48d06351b065dc8949493d7e8 we have done it for the kernel, but to have a better feeling of what instruction counts mean, we should do a few more.

A simple well known algorithm would also be good.

It'd be good to state publicly the oldest kernel and glibc (or even other libc versions) we support.
This would allow us to remove some legacy code or force support for legacy code.

This shouldn't require test to be functional (e.g. for some cases like module drivers it could be hard),
but LTP to be compiled and when difficult/impossible to achieve this functionality, it could resulted in TCO

Prerequisite for running on Debian:

$ apt install flex bison libelf-dev libssl-dev bc cpio libncurses5-dev xorriso wget make gawk gcc

Is kmod necessary?

it's great you folks a few example configs for the exporter.. however since you demonstrate a lovely grafana graph graphing the metrics (say that 5 times fast), it would really swell if you also included the dashboard definition JSON that creates those exact grafana graphs..

p.s.. a [quick search](https://grafana.com/grafa

An attempt to port LinuxBoot to the Dell E7420 mentions that there are no guidelines for which DXE modules are necessary to retain, which can be discarded etc.

We should document that.

Tempesta TLS throws misleading Warning: Unrecognized TLS receive return code -16512, drop packet in too many cases. See current TLS functional tests for various different cases when we expect the warnings. We should log some meaningful human readable message instead of just error code.

Please fix tls/test_tls_cert.py tests (see comments), e.g. for InvalidHash test (SHA1) Tempesta throws m

While trying to learn how to use EVDI I discovered that evdi_get_event_ready is mentioned in the Quick Start, but not the detailed documentation. As I understand it, the detailed documentation is supposed to document all of libevdi.

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
No

Describe the solution you'd like
We have date of disclosure on the backend, we need to expose it somewhere on the site and in the data.

One problem with faulting programs under KRF is that KRF might decide to inject a fault during the dynamic link/load phase, aborting ld-linux.so instead of the actual target image. This usually isn't helpful, since it doesn't indicate any mistakes in the target itself.

It should be possible to check the loaded program's name via the current task, probably via comm. We should use that (or