[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130620181445.GA791@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:14:45 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
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 Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:10:15PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Because Windows passes high addresses to SetVirtualAddressMap(), and
> because if you can imagine firmware developers getting it wrong then
> firmware developers will have got it wrong.
Can we reversely assume that if we'd used fixed high offsets, as hpa
suggests, then it'll be fine? IOW, are any high addresses, even fixed
ones, fine?
--
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