On 06/29/15 20:10, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 June 2015 at 17:12, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 29 June 2015 at 17:09, Matt Fleming wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun, at 03:06:32PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
In any case, for OVMF, I think we'll need a small patch that disables
this feature (if
On 29 June 2015 at 17:12, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 June 2015 at 17:09, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jun, at 03:06:32PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>
>>> In any case, for OVMF, I think we'll need a small patch that disables
>>> this feature (if for nothing else, then to quell the noisy warnin
On 29 June 2015 at 18:21, Carsey, Jaben wrote:
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheu...@linaro.org]
>>Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 8:35 AM
>>To: Yao, Jiewen
>>Cc: Fleming, Matt; edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>Subj
>-Original Message-
>From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheu...@linaro.org]
>Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 8:35 AM
>To: Yao, Jiewen
>Cc: Fleming, Matt; edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>Subject: Re: [edk2] BUG in properties table feature implementation
>
>On 29
On 29 June 2015 at 16:08, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Good to know. Thanks!
>
Another question from my side: is it guaranteed the the memory map
returned by GetMemoryMap() is sorted?
Otherwise, it becomes non-trivial for the OS to ensure that all
Runtime regions are mapped adjacently.
> -Original
On 29 June 2015 at 17:09, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun, at 03:06:32PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>
>> In any case, for OVMF, I think we'll need a small patch that disables
>> this feature (if for nothing else, then to quell the noisy warnings
>> about "the section alignment being != 4 KB"). I'm
On Mon, 29 Jun, at 03:06:32PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
> In any case, for OVMF, I think we'll need a small patch that disables
> this feature (if for nothing else, then to quell the noisy warnings
> about "the section alignment being != 4 KB"). I'm adding that to my
> queue (but anyone please feel f
On 29 June 2015 at 15:06, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 06/29/15 14:44, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 29 June 2015 at 14:34, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
>>> Hi Ard
>>> Yes, your are right. We do observe similar odd behavior in old
>>> Win7/Win8/Win8.1, and we have to disable it.
>>> Win8 and Win8.1 have OS patc
Good to know. Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheu...@linaro.org]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:06 PM
To: Yao, Jiewen
Cc: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Gao, Liming; Laszlo Ersek; Justen, Jordan
L; Kinney, Michael D; Zeng, Star; Zimmer, Vincent; Fleming
On 29 June 2015 at 15:58, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Yes. It seems we need some special handling for AArch64.
> If 64KiB is minimal paging unit, I think we need check 64KiB PE section
> alignment for AArch64.
>
> I confess that I only validated IA32 and X64, and I did not take AArch64 into
> account.
Yes. It seems we need some special handling for AArch64.
If 64KiB is minimal paging unit, I think we need check 64KiB PE section
alignment for AArch64.
I confess that I only validated IA32 and X64, and I did not take AArch64 into
account.
BTW: There is no 64KiB alignment requirement for AArch32
On 29 June 2015 at 14:54, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Thanks for the sharing. Yes. I agree with you that this breaks backward
> compatibility.
> Right, I do not think we can boot Win7 or old Win8 with this feature enabled.
>
> Both UEFI OS and Firmware need support this UEFI2.5 Properties Table feature.
to:jiewen@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:22 AM
To: Laszlo Ersek; Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: Fleming, Matt; edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [edk2] BUG in properties table feature implementation
The white paper is
@https://firmware.intel.com/sites/default/files/
The white paper is
@https://firmware.intel.com/sites/default/files/resources/A_Tour_Beyond_BIOS_Memory_Practices_with_UEFI.pdf
We documented the OS limitation, like Win8, and we hope future OS can resolve
it. (So did Win10)
(We also listed some other potential limitation on PE/COFF image parsing
On 06/29/15 14:44, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 June 2015 at 14:34, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
>> Hi Ard
>> Yes, your are right. We do observe similar odd behavior in old
>> Win7/Win8/Win8.1, and we have to disable it.
>> Win8 and Win8.1 have OS patch to set adjacent virtual memory map, to resolve
>> t
Thanks for the sharing. Yes. I agree with you that this breaks backward
compatibility.
Right, I do not think we can boot Win7 or old Win8 with this feature enabled.
Both UEFI OS and Firmware need support this UEFI2.5 Properties Table feature. I
believe it is known by UEFI forum, when it is added
On 29 June 2015 at 14:34, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Hi Ard
> Yes, your are right. We do observe similar odd behavior in old
> Win7/Win8/Win8.1, and we have to disable it.
> Win8 and Win8.1 have OS patch to set adjacent virtual memory map, to resolve
> this issue.
I see this as a big problem with the
Hi Ard
Yes, your are right. We do observe similar odd behavior in old
Win7/Win8/Win8.1, and we have to disable it.
Win8 and Win8.1 have OS patch to set adjacent virtual memory map, to resolve
this issue.
We also tested Win10, and Suse 11 GM. They are good.
Would you please share the information
On 29 June 2015 at 13:33, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 06/29/15 12:46, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I am running into another problem with the implementation of the UEFI
>> 2.5 Properties Table feature. It splits PE/COFF images into separate
>> but adjacent memory regions, only to be able
On 06/29/15 12:46, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am running into another problem with the implementation of the UEFI
> 2.5 Properties Table feature. It splits PE/COFF images into separate
> but adjacent memory regions, only to be able to assign different
> permissions to .text and .data
Hello all,
I am running into another problem with the implementation of the UEFI
2.5 Properties Table feature. It splits PE/COFF images into separate
but adjacent memory regions, only to be able to assign different
permissions to .text and .data sections. This is working fine at boot
time.
Howeve
21 matches
Mail list logo
