From: Randy Wright <rwright@filesys1.fc.hp.com>
To: mjg@redhat.com (Matthew Garrett)
Cc: rwright@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tmac@hp.com,
hpa@zytor.com, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] function probe_roms accessing improper addresses
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:05:01 -0600 (MDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201210231605.q9NG51KW022791@filesys1.fc.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121019153015.GD28212@srcf.ucam.org> from "Matthew Garrett" at Oct 19, 2012 04:30:15 pm
Hi Matthew,
You made some interesting suggestions:
> 1) Declare that any x86 hardware supported by Linux *must* support
> probing in this address region
On the first: one way to be compliant with such a requirement would be
to design systems that implement softfail in this particular region.
What about a system that hardfails, but on which the resulting machine
check can be handled by the kernel machine check handler? Would
appropriate re-ordering of the kernel initialization code to support
such systems be acceptable?
Also, let me mention a possible amendment to your first idea: what if
the mandate that probing be supported were qualified by some attribute
that could be indicated in the UEFI environment? For example: instead
of just a hole in the UEFI memory map, what if this range was
specifically present and typed as EfiUnusableMemory? Another idea for
UEFI systems - but one requiring a UEFI specification change - might be
adding a UEFI variable that if present, indicates any area not
explicitly included and typed in the UEFI memory map (including the
legacy adapter region) must be explicitly avoided by an OS.
> 2) Don't call probe_roms() by default, but leave it up to the graphics
> drivers. If they can get the rom by any other means then don't call it.
One the second idea: there are a quite a lot of video drivers in the kernel
source tree. Do you have a suggestion for how to evaluate which ones
rely on the setup performed by probe_roms?
--
Randy Wright Hewlett-Packard Company
Phone: (970) 898-0998 Mail: rwright@hp.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-23 16:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <jQZho-4fF-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <jSWfn-7B6-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
2012-10-19 15:20 ` Randy Wright
2012-10-19 15:30 ` Matthew Garrett
2012-10-19 15:37 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-23 16:05 ` Randy Wright [this message]
2012-10-23 16:27 ` Matthew Garrett
2012-10-04 19:22 [PATCH RFC] function probe_roms accessing improper addresses on UEFI systems Matthew Garrett
2012-10-10 4:31 ` [PATCH RFC] function probe_roms accessing improper addresses Randy Wright
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201210231605.q9NG51KW022791@filesys1.fc.hp.com \
--to=rwright@filesys1.fc.hp.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=mjg@redhat.com \
--cc=rwright@hp.com \
--cc=tmac@hp.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®