Re: [edk2-devel] static data in dxe_runtime modules

2019-08-12 Thread Roman Kagan
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 04:07:00PM +, Roman Kagan via Groups.Io wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 07:39:14PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > On 08/07/19 19:41, Andrew Fish wrote: > > >> On Aug 7, 2019, at 10:29 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > >> On 08/05/19 12:18,

Re: [edk2-devel] static data in dxe_runtime modules

2019-08-16 Thread Roman Kagan
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:26:47AM -0700, Andrew Fish via Groups.Io wrote: > Every runtime driver I've every seen usually works like this: > 1) Loads as an EFI driver and uses EFI Boot Services in its constructor (gBS, > gDS, AllocatePool(), etc.) > 2) You use the EFI Boot Service to register the

Re: [edk2-devel] static data in dxe_runtime modules

2019-08-13 Thread Roman Kagan
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:10:27AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 08/12/19 20:43, Roman Kagan wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 04:07:00PM +0000, Roman Kagan via Groups.Io wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 07:39:14PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > >>> On 08/

[edk2-devel] static data in dxe_runtime modules

2019-08-01 Thread Roman Kagan
I'm trying to come up with a solution to the problem that OpenSSL internally uses static variables ("per-thread" in no-threads config) to store pointers, which remain unadjusted upon SetVirtualAddressMap and cause the guest OS crash. More specifically, trying to set a signed variable leads to the

Re: [edk2-devel] static data in dxe_runtime modules

2019-08-05 Thread Roman Kagan
On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 04:03:04AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek via Groups.Io wrote: > On 08/01/19 21:16, Roman Kagan wrote: > This is a serious bug. Thank you for reporting and analyzing it. Can you > file it in the TianoCore Bugzilla too, please? https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=

Re: [edk2-devel] static data in dxe_runtime modules

2019-08-09 Thread Roman Kagan
folder. I see myself addressed on it as: > >> > >> Laszlo Ersek via Groups.Io >> <mailto:lersek=redhat@groups.io>> I've adjusted my mail config to honor the 'reply-to:' header, should be ok now. > >> On 08/05/19 12:18, Roman Kagan wrote: > >>&g