On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 04:28:50PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.06.15 at 16:08, wrote:
> >> @@ -1220,6 +1224,9 @@ void __init efi_init_memory(void)
> >> #define EFI_MEMORY_RP 0x2000
> >> #define EFI_MEMORY_XP 0x4000
> >> +#define EFI_MEMORY_RO
>>> On 09.06.15 at 16:08, wrote:
>> @@ -1220,6 +1224,9 @@ void __init efi_init_memory(void)
>> #define EFI_MEMORY_RP 0x2000
>> #define EFI_MEMORY_XP 0x4000
>> +#define EFI_MEMORY_RO 0x0002
>> +
>> +#define EFI_MEMORY_NV
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:08:56AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> .. ..snip..
> > @@ -1220,6 +1224,9 @@ void __init efi_init_memory(void)
> > prot |= _PAGE_PAT | MAP_SMALL_PAGES;
> > else if ( desc->Attribute & (EFI_MEMORY_UC | EFI_MEMORY_UCE) )
> > prot |=
On 09/06/15 14:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> That flag now means cachability rather than protection, and a new flag
> EFI_MEMORY_RO got added in its place.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
This matches my reading of the 2.5 spec.
Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper
. ..snip..
> @@ -1220,6 +1224,9 @@ void __init efi_init_memory(void)
> prot |= _PAGE_PAT | MAP_SMALL_PAGES;
> else if ( desc->Attribute & (EFI_MEMORY_UC | EFI_MEMORY_UCE) )
> prot |= _PAGE_PWT | _PAGE_PCD | MAP_SMALL_PAGES;
> +else if ( efi_bs_revision >=
That flag now means cachability rather than protection, and a new flag
EFI_MEMORY_RO got added in its place.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/common/efi/boot.c
+++ b/xen/common/efi/boot.c
@@ -32,6 +32,8 @@
/* Using SetVirtualAddressMap() is incompatible with kexec: */
#undef USE_SET_VIRTUA
