WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-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 18:04:56 +0000
Cc: "Xu, James" <james.xu@xxxxxxxxx>, "Wang, Shane" <shane.wang@xxxxxxxxx>, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:05:51 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <D936D925018D154694D8A362EEB0892002C7C40F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/rrjQ0OzxTZHSH6adQB0Zgj0AAzUsnAAA3v0QgAAvpSgAAB6yw4AAD/usAAAM7T7
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology support
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
On 29/10/07 18:00, "Cihula, Joseph" <joseph.cihula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> 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)?
> 
> Yes, it's in the lower 1MB and that is where dom0 has problems with
> gaps.  But I think that the UNUSABLE->RESERVED approach will be just as
> effective and reduce the amount of memory to scan as well.

Okay, we should limit the scan to page-aligned addresses in UNUSABLE regions
below 1MB. It makes sense to put the UNUSABLE->RESERVED hack in Xen itself,
rather than in tboot. Once the interface is baked into 3.2.0 it's not
changing on our side.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>