linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] efi: arch, x86: arch, ia64: move efi_mem

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]

Message-ID: <5571D1E8.7040709@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Fri, 05 Jun 2015 09:44:24 -0700
From:	"Zhang, Jonathan Zhixiong" <zjzhang@...eaurora.org>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
CC:	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	leif.lindholm@...aro.org, al.stone@...aro.org, fu.wei@...aro.org,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org,
	vgandhi@...eaurora.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] efi: arch, x86: arch, ia64: move efi_mem_attributes()

Sure, I will got with B with clear comment.

Thanks,
Jonathan

On 6/5/2015 2:23 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jun, at 05:09:14PM, Zhang, Jonathan Zhixiong wrote:
>> Thank you for the feedback, Matt.
>>
>> Given that IA64 does not set EFI_MEMMAP, it appears to me there
>> are following options:
>> A. Keep status quota and copy x86's efi_mem_attributes() code
>> to arm64.
>
> Let's avoid this option.
>
>> B. In efi subsystem, provide week default efi_mem_attributes().
>> In the mean time, IA64 continues to have its own implementation.
>
> While I'm not a huge fan of using __weak this makes the most sense to me
> because the alternative is to rename either the ia64 or x86
> implementation and that just seems silly.
>
>> C. Add EFI_MEMMAP support (and related bits) in IA64.
>
> C. isn't an option because the ia64 memory map doesn't work the same way
> as x86 and arm64.
>
>> Which option do you prefer? Once there is a consensus, I am
>> willing to submit patch accordingly for review.
>
> Let's go with B. but please provide a comment above the weak
> implementation explaining *why* it's declared as weak and that any new
> architecture probably doesn't want to override it. Explain that the ia64
> EFI memory map is special.
>

-- 
Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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/