[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150916132822.GB9198@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:28:22 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>, joeyli <jlee@...e.com>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <JBottomley@...n.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 01:25:06PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> ... so even if we wanted to, it would be intractible to find each
> cross-section relative reference and do the fixup.
Hmm, maybe we should go and patch EFI code segments and fixup all
relative references after mapping. I mean, if you want something done
right, you better do it yourself. :-\
> No, it seems nobody thought of this when designing the feature.
Not surprised at all, to be honest.
> Several solutions and/or work arounds are currently under discussion.
And requiring for code segments not to refer to each other with relative
offsets and holding that down in the spec post-factum is not possible
anymore...?
[ I can already imagine what the answer to that question would be though... ]
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
--
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