Yao Jiewen,

> Thought 1: I think we can remove gSmmCorePrivate->FullSmramRanges.

I agree - rather than modifying a second copy to remove ranges, it would make 
more sense to allocate the range out of a single set of descriptors.  Reducing 
the range in another copy is like pretending the SMRAM didn't ever exist which 
is misleading for debugging or other purposes.

> Thought 2: I think we can visit all gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges one by one

I agree, I think an algorithm that truncates the start, truncates the end or 
splits down the middle is necessary.

To make this manageable we need for SMRAM reservations to fit within a single 
SMRAM descriptor, otherwise we need to handle reservations crossing 
descriptors.  Realistically I think this is what implementations will do but 
it's worthy of a clarification in the PI Specification.

You're probably wondering why we wanted to reserve the bottom portion of the 
SMRAM descriptor - in this case I wanted to put a stack here.  For a 
downward-growing stack I thought I could get some level of stack overflow 
protection since the range below would not be mapped.

Thank you!

Eugene

-----Original Message-----
From: Yao, Jiewen [mailto:jiewen....@intel.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 5:36 PM
To: Cohen, Eugene; edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: PiSmmIpl SMRAM Reservation Logic

Hi Eugene
Thanks to catch this.
Yes, I fully agree with you that the hidden assumption should be removed here.

After I revisit code again, my thought is below.
Fact 1: PiSmmIpl will manipulate gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges at least 2 
places. 
One is here - for SmmConfiguration.
The other is to remove PiSmmCore.
gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges will adjust PhysicalSize to make reserved region 
invisible to PiSmmCore.

Fact 2: PiSmmCore also need full Smram information, so PiSmmIpl use 
gSmmCorePrivate->FullSmramRanges.

Thought 1: I think we can remove gSmmCorePrivate->FullSmramRanges.
When we exclude some Smram from gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges, we can split 
record in gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges and mark it to be ALLOCATED in 
gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges. Then PiSmmCore can still use  full record in 
gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges to calculate Smram information.
Using 2 records is confusing...

Thought 2: I think we can visit all gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges one by one, to 
see if there is overlap with SmmConfiguration->SmramReservedRegions. Then we 
split the gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges record.
I think the split logic can handle SmmConfiguration->SmramReservedRegions at 
beginning, at end, in the middle, or cross multiple SmramRanges.

Please let me know if this works.

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

-----Original Message-----
From: Cohen, Eugene [mailto:eug...@hp.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:22 AM
To: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Yao, Jiewen
Subject: RE: PiSmmIpl SMRAM Reservation Logic

When trying the seemingly simple fix I see it doesn't work properly because the 
IPL could try to stomp over the reserved range at the beginning.  To really 
handle this correctly we would either need to reduce the descriptor from the 
beginning (increase start address) and end (decrease size) or even go so far as 
to split the descriptor into multiple ones.  I'd like to hear what the module 
maintainer prefers to do.

Eugene

-----Original Message-----
From: Cohen, Eugene 
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 1:02 PM
To: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [edk2] PiSmmIpl SMRAM Reservation Logic

I've been debugging an SMM IPL issue and have isolated it to an assumption in 
the SMRAM range reservation logic in SmmIplEntry.  The logic checks to see if 
the reserved range resides within the SMRAM descriptor and if it does it 
reduces the size of the SMRAM range by the start address of the reservation.  
The purpose of this code is to find a large enough region to load the SMM Core.

This logic is flawed in that it assumes that the reserved range is only near 
the end of the SMRAM descriptor:

          //
          // This range has reserved area, calculate the left free size
          //
          gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges[Index].PhysicalSize = 
SmramResRegion->SmramReservedStart - 
gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges[Index].CpuStart;


Imagine the following scenario where we just reserve the first page of the 
SMRAM range:

SMRAM Descriptor:
  Start: 0x80000000
  Size: 0x02000000

Reserved Range:
  Start: 0x80000000
  Size: 0x00001000

In this case the adjustment to the SMRAM range size yields zero: ReservedStart 
- SMRAM Start is 0x80000000 - 0x80000000 = 0.  So even though most of the range 
is still free the IPL code decides its unusable.

I don't know what the original intent was, but maybe if the math was changed to 
subtract the reserved size it would yield a more sensible result:

          gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges[Index].PhysicalSize = 
gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges[Index].PhysicalSize - 
SmramResRegion->SmramReservedSize;

This logic only works if the reservation fits entirely within an SMRAM 
descriptor range.  The PI SMM spec does not state that the reserved ranges 
(from SMM Configuration) must reside entirely within an SMRAM range (from SMM 
Access).  If we want to keep the implementation this simple we should clarify 
this requirement in the spec.

Eugene



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel

Reply via email to