From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
Huang Ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: Calling __pa() with an ioremap'd address is invalid
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:36:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EB8413D.6030500@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111107202324.GA27515@srcf.ucam.org>
On 11/07/2011 12:23 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 03:34:48PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
>> After the feedback from v1 I tried to unify the efi_ioremap()
>> implementations but ran into the issue detailed in the RH bug report
>> in the changelog. Unless we teach the x86 setup code that
>> EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA regions should be part of the direct kernel
>> mapping table (even though they're marked as E820_RESERVED) I think
>> this patch makes the most sense.
>
> Honestly it seems like there may well be an argument for that. We're
> talking about executable code that the kernel will be calling - it seems
> theoretically neater for it to be added to the direct mapping. We're
> just heavily constrained by our collapsing of the EFI memory map onto
> the rather less fine-grained E820 one and the lack of any obvious way to
> extend that in an OS-specific manner. I guess we could expect the
> bootloader to conform to the standard and then re-walk the EFI memory
> map ourselves to fix things up, but eww...
>
Yes, I think it makes a lot of sense. If we need to introduce new
meta-types to deal with the fact that there are EFI types that don't map
to E820, then so be it... and this is *exactly* why we want the EFI
setup stub to be part of the kernel image and not off in a separate
bootloader, requiring a stable interface...
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-07 20:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1320680088-2584-1-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org>
2011-11-07 20:23 ` [PATCH v3] x86, efi: Calling __pa() with an ioremap'd address is invalid Matthew Garrett
2011-11-07 20:36 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2011-11-07 20:37 ` Matthew Garrett
2011-11-07 20:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-11-07 20:48 ` Matthew Garrett
2011-11-07 20:57 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-11-07 20:58 ` Matthew Garrett
2011-11-07 21:01 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-11-07 21:07 ` Matthew Garrett
2011-11-07 21:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-11-07 21:23 ` Matthew Garrett
2011-11-07 21:34 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-11-07 21:36 ` Matthew Garrett
2011-11-07 22:43 ` Alan Cox
2011-11-11 1:02 ` huang ying
2011-11-11 13:12 ` Matt Fleming
2011-11-11 13:49 ` Matt Fleming
2011-11-07 15:46 Matt Fleming
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=4EB8413D.6030500@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@console-pimps.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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