From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Borislav Petkov <bp-Gina5bIWoIWzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:14:45 +0200
Message-ID: <20130620181445.GA791@pd.tnic>
References: <20130620093337.GI32694@pd.tnic>
 <20130620094446.GA17882@srcf.ucam.org>
 <1371740019.2372.3.camel@dabdike>
 <20130620162916.GA25727@srcf.ucam.org>
 <1371746775.2372.11.camel@dabdike>
 <20130620165426.GB26214@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20130620170124.GA19877@pd.tnic>
 <20130620171210.GA26593@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20130620180808.GB19877@pd.tnic>
 <20130620181015.GA27833@srcf.ucam.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Return-path: <linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130620181015.GA27833-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org>
Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley-d9PhHud1JfjCXq6kfMZ53/egYHeGw8Jk@public.gmane.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>, Linux EFI <linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, Matt Fleming <matt-HNK1S37rvNbeXh+fF434Mdi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org>, X86 ML <x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>, LKML <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:10:15PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Because Windows passes high addresses to SetVirtualAddressMap(), and
> because if you can imagine firmware developers getting it wrong then
> firmware developers will have got it wrong.

Can we reversely assume that if we'd used fixed high offsets, as hpa
suggests, then it'll be fine? IOW, are any high addresses, even fixed
ones, fine?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--