* Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If we allocate the EFI runtime as a single virtual memory block then issues > > like rounding between sections does not even come up as a problem: we map the > > original offsets and sizes byte by byte. > > Well, by that reasoning, we should not call SetVirtualAddressMap() in the first > place, and just use the 1:1 mapping UEFI uses natively. This is more than > feasible on arm64, and I actually fought hard against using > SetVirtualAddressMap() at all, but I was overruled by others. I think this is > also trivially possible on X64, since the 1:1 mapping is already active > alongside the VA mapping. Could we please re-list all the arguments pro and contra of 1:1 physical mappings, in a post that also explains the background so that more people can chime in, not just people versed in EFI internals? It's very much possible that a bad decision was made. Thanks, Ingo -- 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
