Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:31:00 +0800 | From | Dave Young <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |