On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 11:42, Marvin Häuser <mhaeu...@posteo.de> wrote: > > > > On 30. May 2023, at 11:38, Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 11:07, Marvin Häuser <mhaeu...@posteo.de> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Ard, > >> > >> Native PE toolchains *generally* also generate XIP images (/ALIGN = > >> /FILEALIGN, but with 32 Byte rather than 64 Byte alignment compared to > >> GCC49+ / CLANGDWARF) [1]. However, because they are underaligned by > >> default (even for RT images that run in an OS context and MM drivers... > >> sigh...), platforms manually override SectionAlignment, but not > >> necessarily FileAlignment [2], breaking XIP. I don't think what you are > >> doing is perfectly safe for these, as they will have FileAlignment < > >> SectionAlignment (and by all chances, BaseTools is borked too). In my > >> opinion check for FileAlignment == SectionAlignment. I can't vouch for how > >> likely FileAlignment has a sane value, the AUDK loader does not read it at > >> all and instead checks PointerToRawData == VirtualAddress, etc. > >> > >> BaseTools generally has poor support for non-XIP vs XIP, probably due to > >> notorious underalignment since the very beginning. For PEIM XIPs for > >> example, which must ship pre-relocated at least for Intel, GenFv just > >> relocates the image in-memory and then copies the changes back to the FFS > >> file [3]. There is no concept of changing the image file size within the > >> procedure and as such, a non-XIP image cannot be converted to XIP on > >> demand. This would be useful for a distinction between pre-memory and > >> post-memory PEIMs, the former of which must be XIP (thus aligned), while > >> the latter can be loaded and relocated in-RAM (thus can be underaligned > >> w.r.t. FileAlignment), but alas. > >> > > > > If XIP for PE images with 4k section alignment is an issue, we could > > always explore loading them into a separate allocation from PEI, just > > like we do with DXE core itself. > > > > This would actually simplify the loader code quite a lot, as we'd be > > able to use the PEI core image loader directly. However, it means we'd > > have to pass this information (array of <guid, base address> tuples > > describing which images were already loaded by DxeIpl) via a HOB or > > some other method. > > I took a *very brief* look at the entire series now. Is this just to apply > permissions before CpuDxe is loaded
Yes. > or is there another reason this is not handled by DxeCore itself? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#105442): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/105442 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/99197142/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
