On 02/02/18 14:28, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:06:07AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 31 January 2018 at 10:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 01/30/18 23:25, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
Laszlo,
I agree that the function is better than a macro.
I thought
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:06:07AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 31 January 2018 at 10:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > On 01/30/18 23:25, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> >> Laszlo,
> >>
> >> I agree that the function is better than a macro.
> >>
> >> I thought of the alignment issues as well. CopyMem(
>
>> - If Ard and Leif say the API is only useful on x86, then I suggest that
>> we implement the API separately for all arches (still in BaseLib):
>>
>> - On x86, we should simply open-code the unaligned accesses (like you
>> originall suggested). The poin
;> PatchAssembly (&gAsmSmmCr4, AsmReadCr4 (), 4);
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> (I think it's fine to open-code the last argument as "4",
>>> rather than
>>> "sizeof (UINT32)", because for patching, we must have
>&
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.
gt;> ...
> >> {
> >> PatchAssembly (&gAsmSmmCr0, AsmReadCr0 (), 4);
> >> PatchAssembly (&gAsmSmmCr3, AsmReadCr3 (), 4);
> >> PatchAssembly (&gAsmSmmCr4, AsmReadCr4 (), 4);
> >> ...
> >> }
> >>
> >>
On 01/31/18 06:54, Ni, Ruiyu wrote:
> Laszlo, Mike,
> Considering this patch doesn't make the code worse,
> actually improved a tiny bit, can we firstly check in the three patches?
I agree; the PatchAssembly() discussion is taking quite a bit of
thought, meanwhile IA32 SMM is broken on KVM -- and
e 8:
>> WriteUnaligned64 ((UINT64 *)(BufferEnd) - 1, PatchValue));
>> break;
>> default:
>> ASSERT (FALSE);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.co
t;
>> - the size is spelled out once per patching
>> - the function name and the variable names make it clear
>> we are patching
>> separately compiled assembly code that was linked into
>> the same
>> module.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
ao, Jiewen
; Dong, Eric
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/3]
UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: update comments in IA32
SmmStartup()
On 01/30/18 21:31, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
Laszlo,
We have already used this technique in other NASM files
to remove DBs.
OK.
Let us know if you have suggestions on how to mak
Ersek
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 10:17 AM
To: Kinney, Michael D ;
edk2-
devel-01
Cc: Ni, Ruiyu ; Paolo Bonzini
; Yao, Jiewen
; Dong, Eric
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/3]
UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: update comments in IA32
SmmStartup()
On 01/30/18 18:22, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
Laszlo,
Th
Michael D ; edk2-
> devel-01
> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu ; Paolo Bonzini
> ; Yao, Jiewen
> ; Dong, Eric
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/3]
> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: update comments in IA32
> SmmStartup()
>
> On 01/30/18 21:31, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> > Laszlo,
> >
t; ; Kinney, Michael D
>>
>> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu ; Paolo Bonzini
>> ; Yao, Jiewen
>> ; Dong, Eric
>> Subject: RE: [edk2] [PATCH 1/3]
>> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: update comments in IA32
>> SmmStartup()
>>
>> Laszlo,
>>
>> We have alre
10:17 AM
>> To: Kinney, Michael D ; edk2-
>> devel-01
>> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu ; Paolo Bonzini
>> ; Yao, Jiewen
>> ; Dong, Eric
>> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/3]
>> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: update comments in IA32
>> SmmStartup()
>>
>> On 01/3
> To: Laszlo Ersek ; edk2-devel-01
> ; Kinney, Michael D
>
> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu ; Paolo Bonzini
> ; Yao, Jiewen
> ; Dong, Eric
> Subject: RE: [edk2] [PATCH 1/3]
> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: update comments in IA32
> SmmStartup()
>
> Laszlo,
>
> We have already use
01.org]
> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 10:17 AM
> To: Kinney, Michael D ; edk2-
> devel-01
> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu ; Paolo Bonzini
> ; Yao, Jiewen
> ; Dong, Eric
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/3]
> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: update comments in IA32
>
On 01/30/18 18:22, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> Laszlo,
>
> The DBs can be removed if the label is moved after
> the instruction and the patch is done to the label
> minus the size of the patch value.
Indeed I haven't thought of this.
If I understand correctly, it means
extern UINT8 gSmmCr0;
Laszlo,
The DBs can be removed if the label is moved after
the instruction and the patch is done to the label
minus the size of the patch value.
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org]
> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30,
18 matches
Mail list logo
