From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>, Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>,
mike travis <travis@sgi.com>, Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] x86/efi: MMRs no longer properly mapped after switch to isolated page table
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 22:55:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160509215524.GQ2839@codeblueprint.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160502213931.GT113599@stormcage.americas.sgi.com>
On Mon, 02 May, at 04:39:31PM, Alex Thorlton wrote:
>
> If you think we're violating EFI rules by accessing these registers from
> both sides of the fence, please let me know. I'd like to make sure that
> we get everything behaving the way it should be!
Oh no, I don't think this is violating the UEFI spec at all, but I do
think it goes against the spirit of the way other implementations are
designed; with maximum separation between firmware and kernel.
In a perfect world, I'd suggest mapping the MMR range in both the
kernel and firmware, at different virtual address ranges, but have
the firmware's version opaque to the kernel and only described by an
EfiMemoryMappedIO region, or something. That is ignoring any region
type conflicts that may arise.
Of course, we don't operate in a perfect world, so a good solution may
be to just insert the kernels' mapping into the EFI page tables.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-09 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-27 15:41 [BUG] x86/efi: MMRs no longer properly mapped after switch to isolated page table Alex Thorlton
2016-04-27 18:23 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-04-27 22:51 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-04-28 1:41 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-04-28 12:57 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-04-29 15:41 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-04-30 22:12 ` Matt Fleming
2016-05-02 21:39 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-05-02 22:17 ` Mike Travis
2016-05-09 21:55 ` Matt Fleming [this message]
2016-05-10 17:35 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-05-02 10:02 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-05-02 22:27 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-05-03 0:10 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-05-03 9:48 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-05-03 18:47 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-05-04 10:36 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-05-04 16:32 ` Alex Thorlton
2016-04-29 9:01 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-29 15:45 ` Alex Thorlton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160509215524.GQ2839@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--to=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=athorlton@sgi.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nzimmer@sgi.com \
--cc=rja@sgi.com \
--cc=sivanich@sgi.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox