Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753594Ab3FFUvE (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 6 Jun 2013 16:51:04 -0400
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:39528 "EHLO
	cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751989Ab3FFUvC (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 6 Jun 2013 16:51:02 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 21:50:57 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>,
        Linux EFI <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        X86-ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86, efi: Add an efi= kernel command line parameter
Message-ID: <20130606205057.GA4363@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <20130606175052.GA1285@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20130606185140.GK20972@pd.tnic>
 <20130606193548.GA2946@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20130606194134.GN20972@pd.tnic>
 <20130606195450.GA3252@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20130606200705.GO20972@pd.tnic>
 <20130606201828.GA3950@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20130606202717.GP20972@pd.tnic>
 <20130606203057.GA4237@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20130606204410.GQ20972@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130606204410.GQ20972@pd.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 979
Lines: 21

On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:44:10PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:30:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Well, we want the 1:1 mappings to exist all the time. The only
> > thing the option should change is whether they're passed to
> > SetVirtualAddressMap() or not.
> 
> But can you call them even if they haven't been passed through
> SetVirtualAddressMap, *after* SetVirtualAddressMap has been called?

What do you mean by "call them"? I don't think we ever want to call by 
physical address, other than maybe in the kexec case. The only reason we 
really care about the physical addresses being mapped 1:1 is that some 
pointers may not have been updated.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/