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
 
   
 

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>