Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1220779

Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime

From Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime
Date 2015-09-08 15:20 +0200
Message-ID <q6qYA-5iH-37@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <q4Z4n-39P-47@gated-at.bofh.it> <q4Ze1-3lc-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <q53Ul-1Af-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <q54np-286-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Fri, 04 Sep, at 08:53:36PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 4 September 2015 at 20:23, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Sep, at 03:24:21PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>
> >> Since the UEFI spec does not mandate an enumeration order for
> >> GetMemoryMap(), it seems to me that you still need to sort its output
> >> before laying out the VA space. Since you need to sort it anyway, why
> >> not simply sort it in reverse order and keep all the original code?
> >> Considering that this is meant for stable, that would keep the delta
> >> *much* smaller.
> >
> > Hmm... that'd be a neat trick and while it would save on the diff
> > size, I don't think it would be smaller in terms of change complexity.
> >
> > EDK2 sorts the memory map when EFI_PROPERTIES_TABLE is enabled, so we
> > can be reasonably sure the entry order returned by GetMemoryMap() is
> > compatible with the split regions, even if it's not mandated by the
> > spec.
> >
> 
> EDK2 does sort it, but the spec does not mandate it so another
> implementation may do something different entirely.
 
Yeah, we should get that requirement added to the spec.

> > For the non-EFI_PROPERTIES_TABLE case, things have been working fine
> > without the sorting, so I'm reluctant to introduce it now (it's also
> > much less of an issue there).
> >
> 
> I see. I do wonder, since the VA mapping preserves the modulo 2 MB
> alignment of each region, aren't you using much more VA space when
> mapping in reverse order as you are doing now?

It doesn't enforce a 2MB alignment for every entry, just those that
are actually 2MB aligned. This should be exactly what was done in the
previous version of the code. Do you see a bug?

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextNext in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2015-09-08 15:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2015-09-08 15:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2015-09-08 22:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2015-09-09 09:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2015-09-09 12:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2015-09-09 12:10 +0200

csiph-web