linux-kernel - re: [PATCH v1 08/14] x86: make CONFIG_EFI

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: <20260122185740.50298-1-sjg@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 07:57:39 +1300
From: Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>
To: ubizjak@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	bp@...en8.de,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	hpa@...or.com,
	kas@...nel.org,
	kees@...nel.org,
	linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
	mingo@...hat.com,
	nathan@...nel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org,
	pmladek@...e.com,
	rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
	tglx@...nel.org,
	x86@...nel.org,
	Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>
Subject: re: [PATCH v1 08/14] x86: make CONFIG_EFI_STUB unconditional

Hi Peter,

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:54 PM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> The EFI stub code is mature, most current x86 systems require EFI to
> boot, and as it is exclusively preboot code, it doesn't affect the
> runtime memory footprint at all.
> 
> It makes absolutely no sense to omit it anymore, so make it
> unconditional.
> 
> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@...or.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/Kconfig                  | 14 ++------------
>  arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile |  2 --
>  arch/x86/boot/compressed/error.c  |  2 --
>  arch/x86/boot/header.S            |  3 ---
>  4 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

At least with QEMU the EFI protocol adds quite a lot of overhead.

Is there any actual need for this?

Regards,
Simon