linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3 -v4] x86_64 EFI runtime service support: EFI basic runtime service support

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]

Message-ID: <4720D797.1020903@zytor.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:51:19 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Chandramouli Narayanan <mouli@...ux.intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, pjones@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 -v4] x86_64 EFI runtime service support: EFI basic
 runtime service support

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>> Well, the original motivation for all of this was to enable implementation of a
>> EFI framebuffer (UGA/GOP).  Now, you can say what you want about EFI (and I
>> definitely have my opinion on it), but that seems legitimate to me.
> 
> To be very clear.  I think we need the EFI boot parameters but
> we certainly don't runtime services to implement an EFI framebuffer.
> 

Ying claimed that GOP requires EFI runtime services.  Is that not true?

	-hpa
-
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/