On 23 September 2015 at 23:06, Dave Young <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/09/15 at 10:08am, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> Version 2.5 of the UEFI spec introduces a new configuration table >> called the 'EFI Properties table'. Currently, it is only used to >> convey whether the Memory Protection feature is enabled, which splits >> PE/COFF images into separate code and data memory regions. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++-------------- >> include/linux/efi.h | 13 +++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c >> index d6144e3b97c5..5cbb8d31da33 100644 >> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c >> @@ -26,20 +26,21 @@ >> #include <linux/platform_device.h> >> >> struct efi __read_mostly efi = { >> - .mps = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .acpi = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .acpi20 = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .smbios = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .smbios3 = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .sal_systab = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .boot_info = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .hcdp = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .uga = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .uv_systab = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .fw_vendor = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .runtime = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .config_table = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> - .esrt = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .mps = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .acpi = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .acpi20 = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .smbios = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .smbios3 = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .sal_systab = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .boot_info = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .hcdp = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .uga = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .uv_systab = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .fw_vendor = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .runtime = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .config_table = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .esrt = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> + .properties_table = EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, >> }; >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(efi); >> >> @@ -105,6 +106,8 @@ static ssize_t systab_show(struct kobject *kobj, >> str += sprintf(str, "BOOTINFO=0x%lx\n", efi.boot_info); >> if (efi.uga != EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR) >> str += sprintf(str, "UGA=0x%lx\n", efi.uga); >> + if (efi.properties_table != EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR) >> + str += sprintf(str, "PROP=0x%lx\n", efi.properties_table); > > Hello, Ard and Matt >
Hi Dave, > I ramdomly read some of mails in linux-efi@, sorry for joining the discussion > late. > > The sysfs file systab abuses sysfs policy about one value one file. For what > we > have done we will have to maintain it, but I think we should not add more > entries > to the file any more. Previously I thought to send a patch to add some code > comment > to avoid later patches doing such modifications, but I hesitated if I should > send > it, later I'm busy on something else.. > While I agree that we should not be abusing this policy in the first place, changing the semantics of 'systab' to mean 'all configuration tables we knew about at some random point in the past' rather than 'all configuration tables passed by the firmware' is even worse imo. Thanks, Ard. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
