On Sat, 22 Dec, at 12:07:48PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 20:29, Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 06:26:23PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 18:13, Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 06:02:29PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > > As far as I can tell, the SGI x86 UV platforms still rely on this, so > > > > > we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future. > > > > > > > > What happened with the old apple laptops which couldn't handle high > > > > virtual mappings and needed 1:1? We don't care anymore? > > > > > > > > > > If that is the case (I wouldn't know) then yes, there is a second > > > reason why we need to keep this code. > > > > Fleming knows details and he's on CC, lemme "pull" him up into To: :-) > > > > IIUC the 1:1 mapping and the 'old' mapping are two different things, > and the new mapping also contains a 1:1 mapping of the boot services > regions, at least until SetVirtualAddressMap() returns.
Yep, they're different. And yes the 1:1 mapping should stick around with the new scheme IIRC (it's been a while).