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 17:24:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20130603162435.GA22563@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> <20130603143010.GA20252@srcf.ucam.org> <1370270282.2910.9.camel@dabdike> <20130603152122.GA21312@srcf.ucam.org> <1370276286.2910.29.camel@dabdike> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1370276286.2910.29.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 09:18:06AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > I don't entirely buy that. All EFI programs run with the physical > address map, therefore every API an EFI program uses is also tested, at > boot time only, obviously. That seems optimistic. Windows never calls QueryVariableInfo() during boot services, so what makes you think doing so has ever been tested? > However, the ExitBootServices() code seems to be much simpler, so I > don't think it will cause too many bugs. The UEFI test suites also > seem to try UEFI calls before and after ExitBootServices(), so I think > relying on a 1:1 mapping looks safer to me. I have no expectation that the majority of system vendors run the test suite, but I have every expectation that every system vendor runs Windows. We should behave as close to the tested mechanism as possible, ie do what Windows does - and that includes calling SetVirtualAddressMap(). -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org