From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=134.134.136.100; helo=mga07.intel.com; envelope-from=jordan.l.justen@intel.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57096220757E7 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:01:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Nov 2017 10:05:30 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,389,1505804400"; d="scan'208";a="7145405" Received: from sacolema-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.254.117.1]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2017 10:05:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ard Biesheuvel , Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <151059633008.20614.7632947872605136883@jljusten-skl> From: Jordan Justen In-Reply-To: <2984eedf-0fee-0d4b-ac3c-83d6307446b1@redhat.com> Cc: Ruiyu Ni , edk2-devel-01 References: <20171110154908.306-1-lersek@redhat.com> <151043270153.17841.16763408160801933614@jljusten-skl> <151043786891.19895.6326436717816766532@jljusten-skl> <151056410867.15809.659701894226687543@jljusten-skl> <2984eedf-0fee-0d4b-ac3c-83d6307446b1@redhat.com> User-Agent: alot/0.6 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:05:30 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] OvmfPkg: measure temp stack usage, restore temp RAM to 64KB X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:01:24 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2017-11-13 05:09:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > given that I'm opposed to calling any library functions before we reach > the ProcessLibraryConstructorList() call lower down in > SecCoreStartupWithStack(), I cannot agree to calling SetJump() either. Good point. -Jordan