linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Calling __pa() with an ioremap'd address is invalid

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20111011162309.GA8582@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:23:09 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc:	"hpanvin@...il.com" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <ming@...e.hu>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	Huang Ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Calling __pa() with an ioremap'd address is
 invalid

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:58:09PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:

> Maybe the extra indirection isn't that bad and no one will care? If so,
> then sure, a unified version sounds like a plan. I was just hesitant of
> changing the existing 64-bit implementation for fear of receiving
> replies like "you've now made the 64-bit path slower".

If we have UEFI calls on the fast path then I think we're already 
losing. I'd favour simplicity over performance here, personally.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/