From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:21:01 +0200 Message-ID: <20130621142101.GG22006@pd.tnic> References: <20130620170124.GA19877@pd.tnic> <20130620171210.GA26593@srcf.ucam.org> <20130620180808.GB19877@pd.tnic> <20130620181015.GA27833@srcf.ucam.org> <20130620181445.GA791@pd.tnic> <20130620181731.GA27960@srcf.ucam.org> <20130620184736.GC19877@pd.tnic> <51C383AC.4060706@zytor.com> <20130621072356.GA22006@pd.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Matthew Garrett , James Bottomley , Ingo Molnar , Linux EFI , Matt Fleming , X86 ML , LKML , Borislav Petkov List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 03:05:30AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > If you cap it you are basically imposing a constraint on the firmware > and may not run properly (or at least have to turn off EFI runtime > calls with all that implies.) I don't want to cap EFI just for the fun of it but rather set a limit so that the next one who wants a chunk of the virtual address space can have a reliable limit from where she/he can start. Otherwise we won't know where EFI reliably ends... > It might be good to have a sanity check but it needs to be pretty > generous. 64 Gb generous enough? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --