From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D76581D77 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:36:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id v77so57013004wmv.0 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:36:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Ah27Np6LOCuUdOyDfOdz3zHxGJLt9qjXcub90lb7RRk=; b=B0bta5yb9ocv58K/nHyHsPxYdTdZXjwGhxbIzY+V+HNyMZQkrg+o9OdTEoIQjUBobK D0si97aP68k4WDD1132qDXn6KWapcjOgIcVLvu8od1JKYNrtG2vPE2Hpx98HBsVfnD61 j0XgiQaUUXnCc0q6piQGuOVn8nSp4rUmIGfRc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Ah27Np6LOCuUdOyDfOdz3zHxGJLt9qjXcub90lb7RRk=; b=p3HmovRPxsqPo7I7qzxfbWFO4QbDO39pKJiBwyIbcuTn0cEP7WbQTWnycjmtXQ3mu/ q2Lb1hmR/Q/rSBqH4mMCcJCNQGy68nAeKZEtJvfeoqssWfTa20wy84BfAoI7w/K9ID9R OQSEdBHWajLE7cdD+bXo0/J//p+0kZH1dIEMReLyAxBIKCg8QxP0DjWocMXFxGAgt8p9 LxReTOXm6d0aKbMeHL5BmHw/VDl5WOG9IcNd58OuUK/KnCp1Kcxvhb30i1Zmf5AE8gtO +6Wicj9qI5URDg2GImxAdD+xJfROI67IDoO/k+zIiVHptbI9DDKWbvRIkcVSDwVVGxK8 8fwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mZhrfWcXxIMxqiiLHOBuDpnHIx/lCf25Gg3mSt/tjpvWN85XvksYNOGAkf7kCpISfq X-Received: by 10.28.221.7 with SMTP id u7mr27159463wmg.33.1486755381912; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:36:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from bivouac.eciton.net (bivouac.eciton.net. [2a00:1098:0:86:1000:23:0:2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z67sm3886923wrb.49.2017.02.10.11.36.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:36:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:36:18 +0000 From: Leif Lindholm To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , "Yao, Jiewen" , "Tian, Feng" , "Kinney, Michael D" , "Fan, Jeff" , "Zeng, Star" Message-ID: <20170210193618.GR16034@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <1486661891-7888-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1486661891-7888-2-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20170210181758.GQ16034@bivouac.eciton.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ArmPkg/CpuDxe: Correct EFI_MEMORY_RO usage X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:36:23 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:25:00PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 10 February 2017 at 18:17, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 05:38:08PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> From: Jiewen Yao > >> > >> Current Arm CpuDxe driver uses EFI_MEMORY_WP for write protection, > >> according to UEFI spec, we should use EFI_MEMORY_RO for write protection. > >> The EFI_MEMORY_WP is the cache attribute instead of memory attribute. > >> > >> Cc: Leif Lindholm > >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 > >> Signed-off-by: Jiewen Yao > >> > >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 > >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel > > > > No objections to this patch, but I would have expected it to be 4/4, > > if it caused issues requiring the other 3 to be created? > > > > Not quite: it is the feature itself that requires these fixes, and > this patch actually makes sense as 1/4, since it removes uses of > EFI_MEMORY_WP that are no longer appropriate. Implementing 2-4 with > EFI_MEMORY_WP instead of EFI_MEMORY_RO and then changing it at the end > would make no sense at all. OK, so basically, the issue was already in the existing code? In that case: Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm