From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:54:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20130603145412.GJ2004@console-pimps.org> References: <1370177770-26661-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de> <20130602225620.GA5496@srcf.ucam.org> <20130603081148.GB13607@nazgul.tnic> <20130603143252.GB20252@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130603143252.GB20252-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Borislav Petkov , Linux EFI , Jiri Kosina , X86-ML , LKML , Borislav Petkov List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 03 Jun, at 03:32:52PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > We can only pass one set of addresses to SetVirtualAddressMap(), but it > doesn't seem like there's any intrinsic reason we can't the runtime > regions mapped to multiple virtual addresses. Indeed. That's the approach I took with my 1:1 series from last year. If Windows is mapping things at higher addresses like you said, then they're probably doing the same. -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center