From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965254Ab3FTJdr (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:33:47 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:51163 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965230Ab3FTJdq (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:33:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:33:37 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Matthew Garrett , Linux EFI , Matt Fleming , X86 ML , LKML , Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping Message-ID: <20130620093337.GI32694@pd.tnic> References: <1371491416-11037-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de> <20130619125243.GD11209@gmail.com> <20130619130225.GA28311@pd.tnic> <20130619130434.GB24957@gmail.com> <20130619160804.GB27832@srcf.ucam.org> <20130620091321.GB6811@gmail.com> <20130620091537.GA17159@srcf.ucam.org> <20130620092237.GA6943@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130620092237.GA6943@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 the only case where I'd expect there to be an issue, since they > > only started supporting booting Windows via UEFI on very recent systems. > > However, unless they're actually sniffing the page tables on UEFI entry, > > I can't see any way that this could break things??? > > Agreed - I was susprised to see that the runtime was able to _break_ in > any way due to 1:1: my assumption was that it can only get better. > > But I did not realize that the 1:1 boot flag also changed what was passed > down, which probably explains the breakages. Right, in the next version, the boot flag will influence only what's being passed down. > I'd even argue to not do this whole boot flag thing at all - just > standardize on the Windows compatibility model as closely as possible. 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. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --