Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:44:47 +0000 | From | Matthew Garrett <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] Documentation: arm: add UEFI support documentation |
| |
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:06:47PM -0600, Matt Sealey wrote:
> there's no guarantee that the kernel hasn't been decompressed over > some important UEFI feature or some memory hasn't been trashed. You > can't make that guarantee because by entering the plain zImage, you > forfeited that information.
The stub is responsible for ensuring that the compressed kernel is loaded at a suitable address. Take a look at efi_relocate_kernel().
> Most of the guessing is ideally not required to be a guess at all, the > restrictions are purely to deal with the lack of trust for the > bootloader environment. Why can't we trust UEFI? Or at least hold it > to a higher standard. If someone ships a broken UEFI, they screw a > feature or have a horrible bug and ship it, laud the fact Linux > doesn't boot on it and the fact that it's their fault - over their > head. It actually works these days, Linux actually has "market share," > companies really go out of their way to rescue their "image" and > resolve the situation when someone blogs about a serious UEFI bug on > their $1300 laptops, or even $300 tablets.
Yeah, that hasn't actually worked out too well for us.
-- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
|  |