From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fix setup_efi_pci() Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:25:38 +0000 Message-ID: <20130125152538.GA30685@srcf.ucam.org> References: <50F94F9202000078000B74EE@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1359051621.2496.95.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> <5102452202000078000B9755@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1359103537.2496.132.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1359103537.2496.132.camel-ZqTwcBeJ+wsBof6jY8KHXm7IUlhRatedral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Fleming Cc: Jan Beulich , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-efi List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:45:37AM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: > Matthew, what guarantees do we have that the memory we've allocated for > the PCI ROMs isn't going to be reused? I suspect what's needed is for > parse_setup_data() to reserve the SETUP_PCI regions, just like you would > for any other key data structure. Yeah, I think that originally I had a copy and then failed to update this to handle just re-using the original allocation. > It's the kernel's responsibility to protect any EFI_LOADER_DATA regions > that it needs, we shouldn't have to trick ourselves by using the > EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA pool for allocations. I guess the concern is that non-EFI systems may end up passing SETUP_PCI? EFI_RUNTIME_DATA would solve one case without handling that, so doing it in the data parsing code probably does make sense. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org