[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1370294345.9888.12.camel@dabdike>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:19:05 -0700
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
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, 2013-06-03 at 19:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > The problem there is that you're saying "In theory". We know that
> > > Windows doesn't behave this way, so we have no legitimate expectation
> > > that it'll work. We know that it doesn't on some Apple hardware.
> >
> > Fine, you say we need to call SetVirtualAddressMap because windows does,
> > I agree, I'm just saying we get additional safety from calling it with
> > the 1:1 map ... I don't see what the problem is.
>
> No. I'm saying that calling it with the 1:1 map is something very
> different to the behaviour of Windows, and I'm saying that doing so is
> known to cause variable writes on some Apple hardware to stop working.
> If we're aiming for maximum compatibility, we need to call
> SetVirtualAddressMap() with addresses above the canonicalisation hole.
OK, so tell me this problem: it's a new one one me. I think you're
saying if we don't call SetVirtualAddressMap with a mapping above a
certain value, some Apple system breaks somehow? (how?).
James
--
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