On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 02:32:47PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 03/01/2013 01:39 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Hi guys,
so I was talking with mfleming on IRC and he said I should talk to you
about it. I actually pestered hpa about it already, sorry :).
So I've been looking into
On 03/01/2013 02:53 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Adding a few more people.
This has been a big topic, and yes, we have a problem.
We seem to have a few options:
1. We could always map 1:1, with the EFI mappings being in the user
part of the virtual address space. This MAY be what Windows
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 02:58:56PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
We seem to have a few options:
1. We could always map 1:1, with the EFI mappings being in the user
part of the virtual address space. This MAY be what Windows does
already. Some Apple platforms are known to fail in this
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 23:30 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2013-03-02 at 00:07 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Hmm, yeah, that's nasty. This also means option #2 can go too because
of the fixed addresses. Option #1 is also kinda polluting user address
space
User address space is
Just commenting on this one for now, the rest tomorrow cuz I'm half
asleep.
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 11:30:25PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
The other option, for the long term, is to fix the damn firmware to
allow SetVirtualAddressMap to be called more than once. It was stupid
for it to be a
On 03/01/2013 03:39 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Just commenting on this one for now, the rest tomorrow cuz I'm half
asleep.
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 11:30:25PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
The other option, for the long term, is to fix the damn firmware to
allow SetVirtualAddressMap to be
On 03/01/2013 03:07 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Hmm, yeah, that's nasty. This also means option #2 can go too because
of the fixed addresses. Option #1 is also kinda polluting user address
space so maybe the most elegant one would be #4, AFAICT.
No, it doesn't pollute the user address
On 03/01/2013 03:30 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2013-03-02 at 00:07 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Hmm, yeah, that's nasty. This also means option #2 can go too because
of the fixed addresses. Option #1 is also kinda polluting user address
space
User address space is there to be
Yes, but way before... not a problem. It isn't a thread in the scheduler sense.
David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 17:11 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 03/01/2013 03:30 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2013-03-02 at 00:07 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Hmm,
