On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 11:53, Marvin Häuser <mhaeu...@posteo.de> wrote: > > > > On 30. May 2023, at 11:48, Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 11:47, Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 11:42, Marvin Häuser <mhaeu...@posteo.de> wrote: > > > I took a *very brief* look at the entire series now. Is this just to apply > permissions before CpuDxe is loaded > > > Yes. > > > Well, actually, the first part of the series gets rid of some > pointless memory copies, which is an improvement in itself. > > > Sorry, I didn't mean the series, I meant the choice to handle things in > DxeIpl over DxeCore in particular. > > Is there even a non-FOSS producer of the CpuArch protocol? To my > understanding, all (common) Intel platforms use the one in UefiCpuPkg. ARM > and friends feel a lot less proprietary to begin with, but I could be wrong. > We were quite successful so far with just merging CpuArch into DxeCore and > setting it up quite early, but of course not at an industry-wide scale. :)
What about the dependencies of CpuArch protocol? On ARM, this is the GIC driver (for the interrupt controller), which has its own platform specific dependencies. So this is not tractable in general, and the only options we have (imo) are - add memory permission attribute handling to DxeCore directly (via a library with arch specific implementations) - add a way to dispatch the CpuDxe *and its dependencies* without the need to manipulate memory permissions Clumping everything together into DxeCore does not appear to me as a sustainable approach for this. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#105445): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/105445 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/99197142/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
