From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org (Matthew Garrett) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:44:47 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/3] Documentation: arm: add UEFI support documentation In-Reply-To: References: <1385656883-4420-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <1385656883-4420-2-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <20131202210719.GQ24997@rocoto.smurfnet.nu> Message-ID: <20131204224447.GA19265@srcf.ucam.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:06:47PM -0600, Matt Sealey wrote: > there's no guarantee that the kernel hasn't been decompressed over > some important UEFI feature or some memory hasn't been trashed. You > can't make that guarantee because by entering the plain zImage, you > forfeited that information. The stub is responsible for ensuring that the compressed kernel is loaded at a suitable address. Take a look at efi_relocate_kernel(). > Most of the guessing is ideally not required to be a guess at all, the > restrictions are purely to deal with the lack of trust for the > bootloader environment. Why can't we trust UEFI? Or at least hold it > to a higher standard. If someone ships a broken UEFI, they screw a > feature or have a horrible bug and ship it, laud the fact Linux > doesn't boot on it and the fact that it's their fault - over their > head. It actually works these days, Linux actually has "market share," > companies really go out of their way to rescue their "image" and > resolve the situation when someone blogs about a serious UEFI bug on > their $1300 laptops, or even $300 tablets. Yeah, that hasn't actually worked out too well for us. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org