On 01/31/18 23:11, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> Laszlo,
>
> I agree the Unaligned functions have issues.
> We should see if we could change the param type.
> It should be a backwards compatible change to
> go from a type specific pointer to VOID *. But
> need to check with all supported compilers.
>
> We can have arch specific functions and macros.
> There are many in BaseLib.h. This way, if a macro
> or function is used by an unsupported arch, the
> build will fail. I also like some of the name
> change suggestions. Maybe PatchInstructionX86()
> and change the parameter name to InstructionEnd.
>
> BaseLib.h
> ==========
> #if defined (MDE_CPU_IA32) || defined (MDE_CPU_X64)
>
> VOID
> EFIAPI
> PatchInstructionX86 (
> VOID *InstructionEnd,
> UINT64 PatchValue,
> UINTN ValueSize
> );
>
> #endif
>
> BaseLib Instance
> ==========
> VOID
> EFIAPI
> PatchInstructionX86 (
> VOID *InstructionEnd,
> UINT64 PatchValue,
> UINTN ValueSize
> )
> {
> ASSERT ((UINTN)InstructionEnd > ValueSize);
> switch (ValueSize) {
> case 1:
> ASSERT (PatchValue <= MAX_UINT8);
> *((UINT8 *)InstructionEnd - 1) = (UINT8)PatchValue;
> case 2:
> ASSERT (PatchValue <= MAX_UINT16);
> WriteUnaligned16 ((UINT16 *)(InstructionEnd) - 1, (UINT16)PatchValue));
> break;
> case 4:
> ASSERT (PatchValue <= MAX_UINT32);
> WriteUnaligned32 ((UINT32 *)(InstructionEnd) - 1, (UINT32)PatchValue));
> break;
> case 8:
> WriteUnaligned64 ((UINT64 *)(InstructionEnd) - 1, PatchValue));
> break;
> default:
> ASSERT (FALSE);
> }
> }
I managed to remove all instruction DBs from PiSmmCpuDxeSmm. I plan to
post the patches this week or the next.
Thanks!
Laszlo
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
