| 
         
xense-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support
 
| 
To:  | 
"Cihula, Joseph" <joseph.cihula@xxxxxxxxx>,	<xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xense-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Subject:  | 
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support | 
 
| 
From:  | 
Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Date:  | 
Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:00:39 +0000 | 
 
| 
Cc:  | 
"Xu, James" <james.xu@xxxxxxxxx>, "Wang, Shane" <shane.wang@xxxxxxxxx>,	"Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Delivery-date:  | 
Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:02:36 -0700 | 
 
| 
Envelope-to:  | 
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 
 
| 
In-reply-to:  | 
<C34BCE40.1798F%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
List-help:  | 
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> | 
 
| 
List-id:  | 
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> | 
 
| 
List-post:  | 
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> | 
 
| 
List-subscribe:  | 
<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> | 
 
| 
List-unsubscribe:  | 
<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> | 
 
| 
Sender:  | 
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 
 
| 
Thread-index:  | 
AcgYPKeHAh+s/rrjQ0OzxTZHSH6adQB0Zgj0AAzUsnAAA3v0QgAAvpSgAAB6yw4AAE1WsA== | 
 
| 
Thread-topic:  | 
[Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support | 
 
| 
User-agent:  | 
Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 | 
 
 
 
On 29/10/07 17:52, "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I didn't mark it as UNUSABLE because dom0 doesn't like low memory that
>> it can't probe and I didn't realize that there would be a problem with
>> marking it RESERVED.  However, I can mark it as UNUSABLE and then when I
>> find it, change it to RESERVED.  I'll send a patch for this as well.
> 
> By low memory, do you mean the signature is in the bottom megabyte of memory?
> If that's guaranteed then can we just scan the whole lot 0x00000-0xfffff
> (excluding VGA hole)?
Something like:
 for (p = 0; p < 0xa0000; p += PAGE_SIZE)
    check for sig at <p>;
 for (p = 0xe0000; p < 0x100000; p += PAGE_SIZE)
    check for sig at <p>;
??
 -- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
 |   
 
| <Prev in Thread] | 
Current Thread | 
[Next in Thread>
 |  
- Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support, (continued)
 
- Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support, Keir Fraser
 - RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support, Cihula, Joseph
 - [Xense-devel] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support, Keir Fraser
 - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support,
Keir Fraser <=
 
- RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support, Cihula, Joseph
 - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support, Keir Fraser
 - RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support, Cihula, Joseph
 - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support, Keir Fraser
 - [Xense-devel] RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution	Technology support, Cihula, Joseph
 - RE: [Xense-devel] RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted	ExecutionTechnology support, Cihula, Joseph
 
 
 |  
  
 | 
    |