Sadly a lot of firmware is known to fail in that configuration :( That was very much our guest choice. I don't actually think it is all that infeasible to keep relative offsets consistent for the regions we have to map. PMD_SIZE is not a very large chunk so it could be a problem. On September 26, 2015 1:09:17 PM PDT, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 26 sep. 2015, at 12:57, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 26 Sep, at 12:49:26PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> >>> It is still a hack unless all relative offsets are preserved. That >>> is actually simpler, even: no sorting necessary. >> >> Unless I'm missing something, preserving relative offsets is exactly >> what we do today, modulo PMD_SIZE gaps. >> > >I think what Peter means is preserving the relative offsets inside the >entire 1:1 space. > >This is not at all what we do currently, and i don't think it is >generally feasible on 32-bit (since the physical range may conflict >with the virtual kernel mappings) > >However, on 64 bit (both arm and x86), this boils down to not calling >setVA() in the first place, which i'm all in favor of. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
