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 18:38:04 +0200 Message-ID: <20130619163804.GG28300@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> <20130619161827.GF28300@pd.tnic> <20130619162115.GA28119@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130619162115.GA28119@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.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 05:21:15PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Yes, kexec needs a different solution. No need. If we say, "efi=use_11_map", the 1:1 map will be shoved down SetVirtualAddressMap. Otherwise the high mappings. > Because firmware images don't always update all of the pointers, and > so will crash if the 1:1 mappings aren't present. Ok, so it sounds like we want to *always* create both mappings but, depending on what we want, to shove down SetVirtualAddressMap a different set. And the 1:1 map will be the optional one which we give SetVirtualAddressMap only when user wants it, i.e. when booting with "efi=1:1_map". Makes sense? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --