[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130619162115.GA28119@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:21:15 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux EFI <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:18:27PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 05:08:04PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > But, as always, the only reliable thing to do here is to behave as
> > much like Windows as possible. Which means performing the 1:1 mapping
> > but maintaining the high mapping, and passing the high values via
> > SetVirtualAddressMap.
>
> We can't pass the high values via SetVirtualAddressMap and have EFI
> runtime in the kexec-ed kernel, as you and I established last week. And
> since not all would want EFI runtime in the kexec-ed kernel, I'm leaning
> more towards a boot-time option which enables the 1:1 mapping.
Yes, kexec needs a different solution.
> Btw, why would you even want the 1:1 mappings if we pass the high values
> via SetVirtualAddressMap?
Because firmware images don't always update all of the pointers, and so
will crash if the 1:1 mappings aren't present.
--
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