[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130619164822.GA28240@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:48:22 +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 06:38:04PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 05:21:15PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Yes, kexec needs a different solution.
>
> No need. If we say, "efi=use_11_map", the 1:1 map will be shoved down
> SetVirtualAddressMap. Otherwise the high mappings.
Ah, sure - if we're willing to take an argument then we can leave it at
that. But having a stable set of high addresses for UEFI is also an
option.
> > Because firmware images don't always update all of the pointers, and
> > so will crash if the 1:1 mappings aren't present.
>
> Ok, so it sounds like we want to *always* create both mappings but,
> depending on what we want, to shove down SetVirtualAddressMap a
> different set. And the 1:1 map will be the optional one which we give
> SetVirtualAddressMap only when user wants it, i.e. when booting with
> "efi=1:1_map".
Yup, I think that sounds ideal.
--
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