> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 09:35:07AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 17:24 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> That seems optimistic. Windows never calls QueryVariableInfo() during
>>> boot services, so what makes you think doing so has ever been tested?
>>
>> It's used by the
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:54:12PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jun, at 03:32:52PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > We can only pass one set of addresses to SetVirtualAddressMap(), but it
> > doesn't seem like there's any intrinsic reason we can't the runtime
> > regions mapped to multiple
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 02:19:05PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 19:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > No. I'm saying that calling it with the 1:1 map is something very
> > different to the behaviour of Windows, and I'm saying that doing so is
> > known to cause variable
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 19:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > The problem there is that you're saying "In theory". We know that
> > > Windows doesn't behave this way, so we have no legitimate expectation
> > > that it'll work. We know that it doesn't on some Apple hardware.
> >
> > Fine, you s
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 11:05:03AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 17:42 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Why do you persist in this belief that all system vendors are going to
> > have run a shell, let alone any kind of test suite? That runs counter to
> > everything we've
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 17:42 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 09:35:07AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 17:24 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > That seems optimistic. Windows never calls QueryVariableInfo() during
> > > boot services, so what makes
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 09:35:07AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 17:24 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > That seems optimistic. Windows never calls QueryVariableInfo() during
> > boot services, so what makes you think doing so has ever been tested?
>
> It's used by the UEF
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 17:24 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 09:18:06AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > I don't entirely buy that. All EFI programs run with the physical
> > address map, therefore every API an EFI program uses is also tested, at
> > boot time only, obvi
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 16:21 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 07:38:02AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 15:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Windows calls SetVirtualAddressMap(), so the only way these systems have
> > > been tested is with SetVir
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 09:18:06AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> I don't entirely buy that. All EFI programs run with the physical
> address map, therefore every API an EFI program uses is also tested, at
> boot time only, obviously.
That seems optimistic. Windows never calls QueryVariableInfo
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 07:38:02AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 15:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Windows calls SetVirtualAddressMap(), so the only way these systems have
> > been tested is with SetVirtualAddressMap().
>
> I know, but that's not what I said.
>
> If
On Mon, 03 Jun, at 03:32:52PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We can only pass one set of addresses to SetVirtualAddressMap(), but it
> doesn't seem like there's any intrinsic reason we can't the runtime
> regions mapped to multiple virtual addresses.
Indeed. That's the approach I took with my 1:1 ser
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 15:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 07:27:22AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > That's correct. I think not calling SetVirtualAddressMap() and just
> > using a 1:1 mapping is far safer (having looked at what tianocore does
> > for SetVirtualAddre
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:11:48AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 11:56:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I've just run Windows 8 under a hacked up copy of OVMF that dumps
> > the data passed to SetVirtualAddressMap. It seems that Windows *is*
> > mapping the runtime s
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 07:27:22AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> That's correct. I think not calling SetVirtualAddressMap() and just
> using a 1:1 mapping is far safer (having looked at what tianocore does
> for SetVirtualAddressMap()). The chances are that all the UEFI bioses
> are only teste
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 10:11 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 11:56:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I've just run Windows 8 under a hacked up copy of OVMF that dumps
> > the data passed to SetVirtualAddressMap. It seems that Windows *is*
> > mapping the runtime services
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 11:56:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I've just run Windows 8 under a hacked up copy of OVMF that dumps
> the data passed to SetVirtualAddressMap. It seems that Windows *is*
> mapping the runtime services to higher addresses - so presumably the
> 1:1 mapping is in addit
I've just run Windows 8 under a hacked up copy of OVMF that dumps the
data passed to SetVirtualAddressMap. It seems that Windows *is* mapping
the runtime services to higher addresses - so presumably the 1:1 mapping
is in addition to the virtual mapping.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
18 matches
Mail list logo
