[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130603162435.GA22563@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:24:35 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linux EFI <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, X86-ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 09:18:06AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> I don't entirely buy that. All EFI programs run with the physical
> address map, therefore every API an EFI program uses is also tested, at
> boot time only, obviously.
That seems optimistic. Windows never calls QueryVariableInfo() during
boot services, so what makes you think doing so has ever been tested?
> However, the ExitBootServices() code seems to be much simpler, so I
> don't think it will cause too many bugs. The UEFI test suites also
> seem to try UEFI calls before and after ExitBootServices(), so I think
> relying on a 1:1 mapping looks safer to me.
I have no expectation that the majority of system vendors run the test
suite, but I have every expectation that every system vendor runs
Windows. We should behave as close to the tested mechanism as possible,
ie do what Windows does - and that includes calling
SetVirtualAddressMap().
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists