From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:30:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20130603143010.GA20252@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1370177770-26661-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de> <20130602225620.GA5496@srcf.ucam.org> <20130603081148.GB13607@nazgul.tnic> <1370269642.2910.4.camel@dabdike> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1370269642.2910.4.camel@dabdike> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Borislav Petkov , Linux EFI , Matt Fleming , Jiri Kosina , X86-ML , LKML , Borislav Petkov List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 07:27:22AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > That's correct. I think not calling SetVirtualAddressMap() and just > using a 1:1 mapping is far safer (having looked at what tianocore does > for SetVirtualAddressMap()). The chances are that all the UEFI bioses > are only tested with windows, so the pointer chases it has to do to > switch address maps only work with the operations windows does. Windows calls SetVirtualAddressMap(), so the only way these systems have been tested is with SetVirtualAddressMap(). -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org