linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:21:01 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	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 Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 03:05:30AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> If you cap it you are basically imposing a constraint on the firmware
> and may not run properly (or at least have to turn off EFI runtime
> calls with all that implies.)

I don't want to cap EFI just for the fun of it but rather set a limit
so that the next one who wants a chunk of the virtual address space can
have a reliable limit from where she/he can start. Otherwise we won't
know where EFI reliably ends...

> It might be good to have a sanity check but it needs to be pretty
> generous.

64 Gb generous enough?

-- 
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/