From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:18:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20130619161827.GF28300@pd.tnic> References: <1371491416-11037-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de> <20130619125243.GD11209@gmail.com> <20130619130225.GA28311@pd.tnic> <20130619130434.GB24957@gmail.com> <20130619160804.GB27832@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130619160804.GB27832-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linux EFI , Matt Fleming , X86 ML , LKML , Borislav Petkov List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 05:08:04PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > But, as always, the only reliable thing to do here is to behave as > much like Windows as possible. Which means performing the 1:1 mapping > but maintaining the high mapping, and passing the high values via > SetVirtualAddressMap. We can't pass the high values via SetVirtualAddressMap and have EFI runtime in the kexec-ed kernel, as you and I established last week. And since not all would want EFI runtime in the kexec-ed kernel, I'm leaning more towards a boot-time option which enables the 1:1 mapping. Btw, why would you even want the 1:1 mappings if we pass the high values via SetVirtualAddressMap? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --