On 09/15, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 15 September 2017 at 11:53, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 09/14, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> The UEFI memory map is a bit vague about how to interpret the
> >> EFI_MEMORY_XP attribute when it is combined with EFI_MEMORY_RP and/or
> >> EFI_MEMORY_WP, which have retr
On 15 September 2017 at 11:53, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 09/14, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> The UEFI memory map is a bit vague about how to interpret the
>> EFI_MEMORY_XP attribute when it is combined with EFI_MEMORY_RP and/or
>> EFI_MEMORY_WP, which have retroactively been redefined as cacheability
>
On 09/14, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> The UEFI memory map is a bit vague about how to interpret the
> EFI_MEMORY_XP attribute when it is combined with EFI_MEMORY_RP and/or
> EFI_MEMORY_WP, which have retroactively been redefined as cacheability
> attributes rather than permission attributes.
>
> So le
On 14 September 2017 at 12:31, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> The UEFI memory map
*spec*
> is a bit vague about how to interpret the
> EFI_MEMORY_XP attribute when it is combined with EFI_MEMORY_RP and/or
> EFI_MEMORY_WP, which have retroactively been redefined as cacheability
> attributes rather than
The UEFI memory map is a bit vague about how to interpret the
EFI_MEMORY_XP attribute when it is combined with EFI_MEMORY_RP and/or
EFI_MEMORY_WP, which have retroactively been redefined as cacheability
attributes rather than permission attributes.
So let's ignore EFI_MEMORY_XP if _RP and/or _WP a
