From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: Can't see more than 3.5GB of RAM / UEFI / no e820 memory map detected Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:17:19 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jonathan Tripathy , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 23/08/2012 10:50, "Jonathan Tripathy" wrote: > On 23.08.2012 10:43, Keir Fraser wrote: >> On 23/08/2012 09:58, "Jonathan Tripathy" wrote: >> >>>> What does your RAM map look like now from early Xen boot, using >>>> no-real-mode? It shouldn't be "Xen-e801" any more at least, else >>>> the >>>> no-real-mode parameter isn't working. >>>> >>> >>> Still Xen-e801, so it looks like no-real-mode isn't working :( >> >> Grrr it's been broken since tboot support went in, long ago. Going to >> have >> to fix that and backport to 4.1 and 4.0 branches... >> >> -- Keir > > Just for info, is it safe to use no-real-mode on a production system? > Please keep in mind that our DomUs are untrusted. Or would it be better > if I created a patch to change the order of the if block to prefer the > multi-boot memory map? No-real-mode is perfectly safe to use from that point of view -- it will have no impact on safe containment of untrusted DomU's. However, of course it is nice to not have to rely on no-real-mode, so please try switching the ordring of that if block. -- Keir > Thanks > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel