On 10 July 2015 at 16:14, Matt Fleming <m...@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jul, at 03:57:52PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> Are you sure it is the .reloc section itself? It could well be the >> target of a relocation fixup that is inside a code region, which >> cannot be applied due to the page permissions. > > Oh yes, that would make more sense. I was under the impression that the > runtime drivers were built as position independent executables (I don't > know why I thought that). Whoops! > > OK, I've got more kernel work to do then. Looks like we have to first > call SetVirtualAddressMap() and *then* apply the more restrictive page > table permissions. >
Is there a reason to set strict permissions at all on the 1:1 mapping? Does it stick around after having called SVAM () ? My (naive) suggestion would be to apply the strict permissions only to the virtual remapping of the runtime services, but perhaps it doesn't work like that on x86. -- Ard. > I wonder whether this will have a noticeable effect on boot time. > > -- > Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud. GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business. Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today. https://www.gigenetcloud.com/ _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
