Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757178Ab3FSQVX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:21:23 -0400
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:38515 "EHLO
	cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756871Ab3FSQVV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:21:21 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:21:15 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Linux EFI <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping
Message-ID: <20130619162115.GA28119@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <1371491416-11037-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de>
 <20130619125243.GD11209@gmail.com>
 <20130619130225.GA28311@pd.tnic>
 <20130619130434.GB24957@gmail.com>
 <20130619160804.GB27832@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20130619161827.GF28300@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130619161827.GF28300@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: 1213
Lines: 27

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:18:27PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 05:08:04PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > But, as always, the only reliable thing to do here is to behave as
> > much like Windows as possible. Which means performing the 1:1 mapping
> > but maintaining the high mapping, and passing the high values via
> > SetVirtualAddressMap.
> 
> We can't pass the high values via SetVirtualAddressMap and have EFI
> runtime in the kexec-ed kernel, as you and I established last week. And
> since not all would want EFI runtime in the kexec-ed kernel, I'm leaning
> more towards a boot-time option which enables the 1:1 mapping.

Yes, kexec needs a different solution.

> Btw, why would you even want the 1:1 mappings if we pass the high values
> via SetVirtualAddressMap?

Because firmware images don't always update all of the pointers, and so 
will crash if the 1:1 mappings aren't present.

-- 
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/