From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
To: "Gao, Liming" <liming.gao@intel.com>,
edk2-devel-01 <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
"Justen, Jordan L" <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] OvmfPkg: disable build-time relocation for DXEFV modules
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 22:36:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1990275e-e537-54c9-cbc3-2712c4abcbcc@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14D74FBA1@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Liming,
On 06/29/17 05:32, Gao, Liming wrote:
> Laszlo:
> LMFA feature doesn't do PE image rebase at build time. Only XIP
> module needs to be rebased at build time.
Thank you for the clarification.
In this case, BaseTools/GenFv has a bug.
Namely, if LMFA does not need build-time relocation for DXE-phase
modules, then *what exactly* needs build-time relocation for DXE-phase
modules?
This is the code in "BaseTools/Source/C/GenFv/GenFvInternalLib.c":
3537 case EFI_FV_FILETYPE_DRIVER:
3538 case EFI_FV_FILETYPE_DXE_CORE:
3539 //
3540 // Check if section-alignment and file-alignment match or not
3541 //
3542 if ((ImgHdr->Pe32.OptionalHeader.SectionAlignment != ImgHdr->Pe32.OptionalHeader.FileAlignment)) {
3543 //
3544 // Xip module has the same section alignment and file alignment.
3545 //
3546 Error (NULL, 0, 3000, "Invalid", "Section-Alignment and File-Alignment do not match : %s.", FileName);
3547 return EFI_ABORTED;
3548 }
3549 NewPe32BaseAddress = XipBase + (UINTN) CurrentPe32Section.Pe32Section + CurSecHdrSize - (UINTN)FfsFile;
3550 break;
According to the Platform Init 1.6 spec,
- 2.1.4.1 Firmware File Types:
[...] the type EFI_FV_FILETYPE_DRIVER indicates that the file is a DXE
driver and is interesting to the DXE Dispatcher.
- 2.1.4.1.4 EFI_FV_FILETYPE_DRIVER:
The file type EFI_FV_FILETYPE_DRIVER denotes a file that contains a
PE32 image that can be dispatched by the DXE Dispatcher.
So, *when exactly* is it the case that a module dispatched by the DXE
core *needs* build-time relocation?
I claim that the answer is "never", and therefore the above code is a
bug in BaseTools/GenFv.
I thought that this build-time relocation was needed by the LMFA
feature, but you confirmed above that LMFA does not need it. So, it
looks like *nothing at all* needs build-time relocation for
EFI_FV_FILETYPE_DRIVER, because the modules dispatched by the DXE core
are *never* XIP modules.
Do you agree?
> For this case, OvmfPkg DXEFV doesn't require to run as XIP. So, it
> doesn't require rebase. I agree this change.
This change (for the OVMF FDF files) is only valid if the above
BaseTools/GenFv code is also valid. In other words, *if* there is at
least one valid reason for rebasing DXE modules at build-time.
If there is *no* such reason, then the OVMF FDF files do not need this
change, and GenFv must be fixed instead.
So: if LMFA is *not* the one reason that justifies the rebasing for
EFI_FV_FILETYPE_DRIVER, then *what* is the reason? In my commit message
for the OVMF FDF change, I have to refer to that exact reason.
Thanks
Laszlo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-01 20:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-28 22:06 [PATCH 0/2] OvmfPkg: refresh -D E1000_ENABLE (Intel proprietary driver for e1000) Laszlo Ersek
2017-06-28 22:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] OvmfPkg: disable build-time relocation for DXEFV modules Laszlo Ersek
2017-06-29 3:32 ` Gao, Liming
2017-07-01 20:36 ` Laszlo Ersek [this message]
2017-07-03 15:08 ` Gao, Liming
2017-07-03 17:53 ` Laszlo Ersek
2017-07-05 17:48 ` Jordan Justen
2017-07-05 17:55 ` Laszlo Ersek
2017-06-28 22:06 ` [PATCH 2/2] OvmfPkg: update -D E1000_ENABLE from Intel PROEFI v.07 to BootUtil v.22 Laszlo Ersek
2017-06-30 1:20 ` Wu, Jiaxin
2017-07-01 20:22 ` Laszlo Ersek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1990275e-e537-54c9-cbc3-2712c4abcbcc@redhat.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox