[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51C4827B.7090208@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:42:35 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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 06/21/2013 07:21 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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...
>
We don't... and I don't think there is anything we can do about it. If
some messed-up firmware wants to map a terabyte we either refuse and
don't allow EFI runtime calls on that machine or we accept it.
Fortunately the space is extremely large and with growing down from a
known address it is less likely that we'll conflict with something.
>> It might be good to have a sanity check but it needs to be pretty
>> generous.
>
> 64 Gb generous enough?
Let's start there and see if we run into something that gives us trouble.
-hpa
--
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