On 09/27/2015 12:06 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>>> If we allocate the EFI runtime as a single virtual memory block then issues
>>> like rounding between sections does not even come up as a problem: we map
>>> the
>>> original offsets and sizes byte by byte.
>>
>> Well, by that reasoning, we should not call SetVirtualAddressMap() in the
>> first
>> place, and just use the 1:1 mapping UEFI uses natively. This is more than
>> feasible on arm64, and I actually fought hard against using
>> SetVirtualAddressMap() at all, but I was overruled by others. I think this
>> is
>> also trivially possible on X64, since the 1:1 mapping is already active
>> alongside the VA mapping.
>
> 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.
>
Pro: by far the sanest way to map the UEFI tables.
Con: doesn't actually work (breaks on several known platforms.)
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
