On Fri, 27 Jan, at 05:04:50PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 27 January 2017 at 14:48, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Jan, at 05:29:52AM, Dave Young wrote: > >> > >> It sounds reasonable though I'm still not sure about EFI_LOADER*. > >> > >> The main purpose of this patch is to address the invalid mem ranges > >> case. As Ard mentioned I will test with Peter's patch first, if it works > >> fine I would like to either drop this patch as a future improvement or add > >> it at the end of the next post. > >> > >> Matt, what's your opinion about the boot_only check and the EFI_LOADERS* > >> question? > > > > The main reason that efi_mem_reserve() isn't used for EFI_LOADER > > regions today is because we already have a mechanism for reserving it > > via memblock_reserve(), which we do during a very early stage of boot > > when parsing all the different types of SETUP_* objects. > > > > It's questionable whether it would make sense to switch to > > efi_mem_reserve() for EFI_LOADER regions because then you'd > > potentially have different APIs for different SETUP_* objects. > > > > As things stand today, I would suggest triggering a WARN_ON() if > > someone tries to efi_mem_reserve() an EFI_LOADER region, until/unless > > the day comes when a user exists in the kernel. > > Hmm, I just queued this. Should we drop it again? Does dropping it break the entire series? Having had some time to re-read Dave's commit log, it sounds like it just papers over a bug, which is that efi_memmap_insert() cannot deal with reserved entries, which all look like they describe the same region. So I guess my question is: Shouldn't you fix that instead of requiring the caller of efi_memmap_insert() to understand what type of entries it's mapping? -- 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
