lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] arm64/efi: Don't pad between EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME regions
On 09/27/15 at 12:40pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 09:06:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Could we please re-list all the arguments pro and contra of 1:1 physical mappings,
> > in a post that also explains the background so that more people can chime in, not
> > just people versed in EFI internals? It's very much possible that a bad decision
> > was made.
>
> The main reason why we did the additional, top-down mapping was kexec
> kernel wanting to use UEFI runtime facilities too and the braindead
> design of SetVirtualAddressMap() being callable only once per system
> boot. So we had to have stable mappings which are valid in the kexec-ed
> kernel too.
>
> But this was long time ago and I most certainly have forgotten all the
> details.
>
> And now I'm wondering why didn't we do the 1:1 thing and rebuild the
> exact same EFI pagetable in the kexec-ed kernel? Because when we do
> an EFI call, we switch to the special pagetable so why didn't we make
> the kexec-ed kernel rebuild the 1:1 pagetable which it can use for EFI
> calls...
>
> Hmm, again, I've forgotten a lot of details so I'm sure Matt will come
> in and say "No, you can't do that because..."
>

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.efi/822

And more replies here:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.efi/820

Thanks
Dave


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-29 12:01    [W:0.239 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site