* Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
And yet there are the Macs which reportedly cannot stomach this.
Do we know why?
I got lost in a maze of pointer arithmetic. There seems
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:13:21AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Cool - and supposedly this will work in a Mac environment as well? Would
be very nice to avoid fundamentally fragile system specific quirks for
something as fundamental as the EFI runtime memory mapping model ...
Apple is the only
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:22:37AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Cool - and supposedly this will work in a Mac environment as well? Would
be very nice to avoid fundamentally fragile system specific quirks for
something as fundamental as the EFI runtime memory mapping model ...
Apple is
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This will break the Macs so maybe we can do
efi=no_11_map
so the Macs can still boot but use the 1:1 map by default.
I'm going to guess that there are more people running unmodified Linux
kernels on Macs than there are people using
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:53:39AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
Can't we detect Macs from some of the UEFI strings at boot time and do
the right thing with the boot switch (which can be overriden from the
kernel command line if we get it wrong)?
Yes, and then our behaviour differs from
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Can't we detect Macs from some of the UEFI strings at boot time and do
the right thing with the boot switch (which can be overriden from the
kernel command line if we get it wrong)?
Yes, and then our behaviour differs from Windows
How so?
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 17:29 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:53:39AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
Can't we detect Macs from some of the UEFI strings at boot time and do
the right thing with the boot switch (which can be overriden from the
kernel command line if we
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:44:46PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
So if we properly detect those (and only those), we mimic Windows
completely, right?
No. Windows passes addresses above the phys/virt split to
SetVirtualAddressMap().
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:46:15AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
Unless you can think of the way out of this, we seem to have the stark
choice of behave like windows or allow kexec. For the server market,
kexec wins, so either we find a way not to have to make the choice or we
do something
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:54:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:46:15AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
Unless you can think of the way out of this, we seem to have the stark
choice of behave like windows or allow kexec. For the server market,
kexec wins, so
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:01:24PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
If we can detect the Macs, we can make this decision automatic. And
since no Mac boots windoze, a single DMI check of the sort if (Mac)
should suffice.
Yes, we can special-case Macs. But since our behaviour is then obviously
All,
I am attaching a further updated version of eboot.c . We removed the low_alloc
routine from the exit_boot function only. We also removed the goto
statements(sorry we just aren’t huge fans of goto's in c, you can change it
back to be goto oriented if you want though) and put it in a loop
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:12:10PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:01:24PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
If we can detect the Macs, we can make this decision automatic. And
since no Mac boots windoze, a single DMI check of the sort if (Mac)
should suffice.
Yes,
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:10:15PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because Windows passes high addresses to SetVirtualAddressMap(), and
because if you can imagine firmware developers getting it wrong then
firmware developers will have got it wrong.
Can we reversely assume that if we'd used fixed
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:17:31PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:14:45PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:10:15PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because Windows passes high addresses to SetVirtualAddressMap(), and
because if you can
15 matches
Mail list logo
