[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F45B35D.1010702@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:32:45 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC: mingo@...hat.com, mjg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
keithp@...thp.com, rui.zhang@...el.com,
huang.ying.caritas@...il.com, stable@...r.kernel.org,
matt.fleming@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86, efi: Delete efi_ioremap() and fix CONFIG_X86_32
oops
On 02/22/2012 06:20 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> Why is MAXMEM used here?
>
> EFI reserved area could be above 4G?
>
> if that is the case, you will map all mmio hole below 4g.
>
OK, dropping this patch for now, at least from -urgent.
We really need to restrict the memory types we map, at least without
ioremap() called on them. In theory, on x86-64, we could have a
dedicated "1:1" address for each physical address, but there is no good
reason we should ever map memory types other than RAM, ACPI and EFI by
default -- with the possible exception of the low 1 MiB legacy area.
Therefore, I don't see why on Earth we have
kernel_physical_mapping_init() create mappings for areas which are not
RAM. It has access to the memory map at this point, so there is no
reason for it. Unfortunately I think we still have a bunch of code
which implicitly assumes the old "PC" model with separate contiguous
memory ranges starting at 0, 1 MiB, and 4 GiB, however, there are more
and more systems where that just doesn't match reality.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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