On 08/05/13 16:03, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 03:39:31PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> My question was: is my understanding correct that you only see this
>> problem with "-enable-kvm"? Because,
>>
>> On 08/01/13 18:49, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> so I'm seeing this funny thing where an EFI region changes when we
>>> enter efi_enter_virtual_mode when booting with edk2 on kvm. Here's
>>> the diff:
>>
>> You said "on kvm", and provided a diff. I think (hope) I understand the
>> environment you've denoted with "after", but what's your "before"? The
>> absence of "-enable-kvm", or something else?
> 
> Ah, I see.
> 
> So 'before' is the initial dump of the EFI regions, very early during
> boot:

<snip>

> and with 'after' I've denoted the dump of the EFI regions a second time,
> a bit later, when we enter efi_enter_virtual_mode():

<snip>

> 
> during the *same* boot.
> 
> So, it is one boot but two dumps of the EFI regions. And yes, I'm
> booting with the 'kvm' executable which has '-enable-kvm'

Okay. Thanks for clarifying it.

> 
>> What's the purpose of that series? Can you please provide a link (if
>> you posted versions of it already)?
> 
> Not yet posted but working on it.
> 
> The idea is to map the runtime regions at stable addresses so that when
> we kexec a kernel, it can use runtime services too. And we have to do
> that because of the braindead design of SetVirtualAddressMap() being
> callable only once per boot.

I wouldn't call the design of SetVirtualAddressMap() braindead.

I'd rather call kexec unique and somewhat unexpected :)

> 
>>> So what basically happens is the end boundary of the region becomes the
>>> start, practically turning it into a 0-size one.
>>
>> ... and you guys suspect that some firmware code is responsible, code
>> that runs between the initial memory map dump, and efi_enter_virtual_mode():
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/31/550
> 
> I wouldn't wonder if we f*cked it up again like the last time. I'll give
> it a long hard look.

Ah sorry, by "and you guys suspect" I didn't mean to imply anything
between the lines, I was simply trying to ascertain your working idea :)

Laszlo

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent 
caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under 
version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel

Reply via email to