[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130604081544.GA23640@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:15:44 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Linux EFI <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, X86-ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:54:12PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jun, at 03:32:52PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > We can only pass one set of addresses to SetVirtualAddressMap(), but it
> > doesn't seem like there's any intrinsic reason we can't the runtime
> > regions mapped to multiple virtual addresses.
>
> Indeed. That's the approach I took with my 1:1 series from last year. If
> Windows is mapping things at higher addresses like you said, then
> they're probably doing the same.
Right, the way I've done it now is to do the virtual mapping
unconditionally, then do the 1:1 mapping and call SetVirtualAddressMap
(f*cking camelcase is so nasty to type - that's why they need whole IDEs
to program :-)) with that map, if "efi=1:1_map" has been passed on the
cmd line.
After the call, we use *only* the 1:1 map but the virtual mapping is
still there.
The initial approach to addressing the b0rked Macs would then be to
never use the 1:1 map on them.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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