於 四，2013-06-06 於 05:42 +，Matthew Garrett 提到：
On Thu, 2013-06-06 at 13:05 +0800, joeyli wrote:
+ if (!(attributes EFI_VARIABLE_NON_VOLATILE))
+ return EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES;
I'd move this up to the top of the function, and just return 0 - there's
no risk
On Sun, 02 Jun, at 02:56:08PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
From: Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de
Add the ability to map pages in an arbitrary pgd.
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de
---
arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_types.h | 3 +-
arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 80
On Thu, 06 Jun, at 03:26:03PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 11:42:24AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun, at 02:56:09PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
+
+static int __init parse_efi_cmdline(char *str)
+{
+ if (*str == '=')
+ str++;
+ if
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:25:42AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun, at 03:40:26PM, joeyli wrote:
OK, I moved volatile checking to the top of the function.
New version, version 3 diff result like the following.
Thanks. This is what I've now got queued up.
---
From
On Thu, 06 Jun, at 09:48:46AM, Russ Anderson wrote:
This looks like it will try to allocate more than the remaining size.
Is that intended?
Yes, the intention is to trigger garbage collection.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 04:00:39PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun, at 09:48:46AM, Russ Anderson wrote:
This looks like it will try to allocate more than the remaining size.
Is that intended?
Yes, the intention is to trigger garbage collection.
OK, if that's what it takes. It
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 06:50:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 03:26:03PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
This would break the Macs, remember?
I think the Macs will be fine as long as we're passing the high mappings
into SetVirtualAddressMap().
Right, on those
On 06/06/2013 08:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
--
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
index 654be4ae3047..7a6129afdff1 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
@@ -1021,6 +1021,9 @@ __do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long
error_code)
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:51:40PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 06:50:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 03:26:03PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
This would break the Macs, remember?
I think the Macs will be fine as long as we're
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 12:28:20PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Or we could materialize mappings for this specific PGD. However,
adding a read of %cr3 in __do_page_fault sounds expensive.
Yes, I think we want to make sure all mappings are there when we do an
EFI runtime call so that we never
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:35:48PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
No, I think that's the wrong thing to do. We should set up the current
mappings and the 1:1 mappings, and pass the current mappings through
SetVirtualAddressMap(). That matches the behaviour of Windows.
And when do we use the 1:1
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:54:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We want both to be available when we're making the call, but I think
we should probably enter via the high addresses. The only reason we're
doing this at all is that some systems don't update all of their
pointers from physical
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:07:05PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:54:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We want both to be available when we're making the call, but I think
we should probably enter via the high addresses. The only reason we're
doing this at all is
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:18:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
kexec seems like a lower priority than compatibility. Perhaps keep the
efi argument for people who want to use kexec?
This is what I currently have in the code: if you boot with efi=1:1_map,
you get them.
hpa suggested
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:27:17PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:18:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
kexec seems like a lower priority than compatibility. Perhaps keep the
efi argument for people who want to use kexec?
This is what I currently have in the code:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:30:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Well, we want the 1:1 mappings to exist all the time. The only
thing the option should change is whether they're passed to
SetVirtualAddressMap() or not.
But can you call them even if they haven't been passed through
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:50:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What do you mean by call them? I don't think we ever want to call by
physical address, other than maybe in the kexec case. The only reason
we really care about the physical addresses being mapped 1:1 is that
some pointers may not
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 11:02:18PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:50:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What do you mean by call them? I don't think we ever want to call by
physical address, other than maybe in the kexec case. The only reason
we really care about
18 matches
Mail list logo
