linux-kernel - Re: [Patch] acpi: introduce "acpi

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:31:44 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Takao Indoh <tindoh@...hat.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch] acpi: introduce "acpi_addr=" parameter for kdump

于 2011年03月21日 23:56, Vivek Goyal 写道:
>
> Matthew and I were chatting in general about it couple of days back and
> mattew suggested how about if we embrace the idea of booting the kernel
> always in physical mode (both first and second) and keep that extra set
> of pagetables around to make EFI calls. That way kexec/kdump should just
> work and kernel changes also might not be too much.
>
> The potential problem with this is that this might expose various kind
> of BIOS issues with different vendors as vendors might not test the
> physical path.

First I have to say I know a little about EFI.

I am wondering what benefits we will lose if we use physical mode?
comparing it with virtual mode? If very few, this could be a solution.

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/