[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EB8436B.20603@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:45:31 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Huang Ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: Calling __pa() with an ioremap'd address
is invalid
On 11/07/2011 12:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 12:36:13PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> Yes, I think it makes a lot of sense. If we need to introduce new
>> meta-types to deal with the fact that there are EFI types that don't map
>> to E820, then so be it... and this is *exactly* why we want the EFI
>> setup stub to be part of the kernel image and not off in a separate
>> bootloader, requiring a stable interface...
>
> I don't disagree, it's just going to be an absolute pain to manage that
> in a secure boot world.
Could you clarify, please?
> Looking at the code, we actually already seem to
> have decided to start just making up E820 types, so maybe we should just
> do that...
That's what I just said, no? I think we use negative numbers for those.
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists