* [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter
@ 2017-12-13 2:35 Song, BinX
2017-12-13 2:42 ` Ni, Ruiyu
2017-12-13 8:44 ` Laszlo Ersek
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Song, BinX @ 2017-12-13 2:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; +Cc: Dong, Eric, lersek@redhat.com
V2:
Update function name, add more detail description.
V1:
Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter
Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com>
---
.../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h | 5 ++++
.../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644
--- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
+++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
@@ -71,6 +71,11 @@
#define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE (32+9)
#define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS (32+10)
#define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN (32+11)
+//
+// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
+// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it
+// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function.
+//
#define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE (32+12)
#define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL BIT27
diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644
--- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
+++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
@@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
}
/**
+ Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
+
+ @param[in] Feature Pointer to CPU feature
+
+ @retval TRUE The CPU feature is valid.
+ @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
+**/
+BOOLEAN
+RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid (
+ IN UINT32 Feature
+ )
+{
+ UINT32 Data;
+
+ Data = Feature;
+ Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
+ //
+ // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
+ // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below.
+ //
+ if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
+ DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
+ return FALSE;
+ }
+ return TRUE;
+}
+
+/**
Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask buffer.
@param[in] FeatureMask Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
@@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
+ ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature));
while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
!= (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
--
2.10.2.windows.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter
2017-12-13 2:35 [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter Song, BinX
@ 2017-12-13 2:42 ` Ni, Ruiyu
2017-12-13 8:44 ` Laszlo Ersek
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ni, Ruiyu @ 2017-12-13 2:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Song, BinX, edk2-devel@lists.01.org; +Cc: lersek@redhat.com, Dong, Eric
On 12/13/2017 10:35 AM, Song, BinX wrote:
> V2:
> Update function name, add more detail description.
> V1:
> Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter
>
> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com>
> ---
> .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h | 5 ++++
> .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644
> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@
> #define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE (32+9)
> #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS (32+10)
> #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN (32+11)
> +//
> +// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
> +// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it
> +// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function.
> +//
> #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE (32+12)
>
> #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL BIT27
> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644
> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> @@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
> }
>
> /**
> + Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
> +
> + @param[in] Feature Pointer to CPU feature
> +
> + @retval TRUE The CPU feature is valid.
> + @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
> +**/
> +BOOLEAN
> +RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid (
> + IN UINT32 Feature
> + )
> +{
> + UINT32 Data;
> +
> + Data = Feature;
> + Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
> + //
> + // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
> + // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below.
> + //
> + if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
> + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
> + return FALSE;
> + }
> + return TRUE;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask buffer.
>
> @param[in] FeatureMask Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
> @@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
>
> VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
> Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
> + ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature));
> while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
> ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
> != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
>
Reviewed-by: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
--
Thanks,
Ray
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter
2017-12-13 2:35 [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter Song, BinX
2017-12-13 2:42 ` Ni, Ruiyu
@ 2017-12-13 8:44 ` Laszlo Ersek
2017-12-13 8:49 ` Ni, Ruiyu
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Laszlo Ersek @ 2017-12-13 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Song, BinX, edk2-devel@lists.01.org; +Cc: Dong, Eric
On 12/13/17 03:35, Song, BinX wrote:
> V2:
> Update function name, add more detail description.
> V1:
> Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter
>
> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com>
> ---
> .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h | 5 ++++
> .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644
> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@
> #define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE (32+9)
> #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS (32+10)
> #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN (32+11)
> +//
> +// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
> +// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it
> +// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function.
> +//
> #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE (32+12)
>
> #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL BIT27
> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644
> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> @@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
> }
>
> /**
> + Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
> +
> + @param[in] Feature Pointer to CPU feature
> +
> + @retval TRUE The CPU feature is valid.
> + @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
> +**/
> +BOOLEAN
> +RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid (
> + IN UINT32 Feature
> + )
> +{
> + UINT32 Data;
> +
> + Data = Feature;
> + Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
> + //
> + // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
> + // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below.
> + //
> + if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
> + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
> + return FALSE;
> + }
> + return TRUE;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask buffer.
>
> @param[in] FeatureMask Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
> @@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
>
> VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
> Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
> + ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature));
> while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
> ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
> != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
>
The consensus thus far seems to be that we should not add a separate
_MAX macro for this purpose. I don't understand why -- in my opinion it
would be easier to update the macro in one place only.
Now, I realize we have a library class header file here, and a library
instance. Those things are separate; it is conceivable that another
library instance is developed independently, and thus we should not tie
the MAX feature of *all* library instances to the same central class header.
However, this separation is already being violated in this patch: the
RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid() function is an implementation
detail of the (currently only one) library instance. Thus, the lib class
header should not refer to it, even in a comment.
So, I don't understand why we can't just add a _MAX macro. The central
library instance could use _MAX; all other (out of tree) instances would
not use _MAX.
Anyway, this doesn't mean the patch is not correct.
Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Thanks
Laszlo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter
2017-12-13 8:44 ` Laszlo Ersek
@ 2017-12-13 8:49 ` Ni, Ruiyu
2017-12-13 15:34 ` 答复: " Fan Jeff
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ni, Ruiyu @ 2017-12-13 8:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laszlo Ersek, Song, BinX, edk2-devel@lists.01.org; +Cc: Dong, Eric
On 12/13/2017 4:44 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 12/13/17 03:35, Song, BinX wrote:
>> V2:
>> Update function name, add more detail description.
>> V1:
>> Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter
>>
>> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
>> Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com>
>> ---
>> .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h | 5 ++++
>> .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644
>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE (32+9)
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS (32+10)
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN (32+11)
>> +//
>> +// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
>> +// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it
>> +// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function.
>> +//
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE (32+12)
>>
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL BIT27
>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644
>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> @@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> + Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
>> +
>> + @param[in] Feature Pointer to CPU feature
>> +
>> + @retval TRUE The CPU feature is valid.
>> + @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
>> +**/
>> +BOOLEAN
>> +RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid (
>> + IN UINT32 Feature
>> + )
>> +{
>> + UINT32 Data;
>> +
>> + Data = Feature;
>> + Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
>> + //
>> + // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
>> + // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below.
>> + //
>> + if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
>> + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
>> + return FALSE;
>> + }
>> + return TRUE;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask buffer.
>>
>> @param[in] FeatureMask Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
>> @@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
>>
>> VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
>> Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
>> + ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature));
>> while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
>> ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
>> != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
>>
>
> The consensus thus far seems to be that we should not add a separate
> _MAX macro for this purpose. I don't understand why -- in my opinion it
> would be easier to update the macro in one place only.
>
> Now, I realize we have a library class header file here, and a library
> instance. Those things are separate; it is conceivable that another
> library instance is developed independently, and thus we should not tie
> the MAX feature of *all* library instances to the same central class header.
>
> However, this separation is already being violated in this patch: the
> RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid() function is an implementation
> detail of the (currently only one) library instance. Thus, the lib class
> header should not refer to it, even in a comment.
>
> So, I don't understand why we can't just add a _MAX macro. The central
> library instance could use _MAX; all other (out of tree) instances would
> not use _MAX.
>
I do not understand either:)
But if the change doesn't expose more interfaces (_MAX in this case), I
feel safe because we can change much freely in future.
> Anyway, this doesn't mean the patch is not correct.
>
> Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>
--
Thanks,
Ray
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* 答复: [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter
2017-12-13 8:49 ` Ni, Ruiyu
@ 2017-12-13 15:34 ` Fan Jeff
2017-12-14 1:41 ` Song, BinX
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Fan Jeff @ 2017-12-13 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ni, Ruiyu, Laszlo Ersek, Song, BinX, edk2-devel@lists.01.org; +Cc: Dong, Eric
I agree to add one _MAX #define in library instance implementation instead of in class header file.
Jeff
________________________________
From: edk2-devel <edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org> on behalf of Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@Intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4:49:01 PM
To: Laszlo Ersek; Song, BinX; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Dong, Eric
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter
On 12/13/2017 4:44 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 12/13/17 03:35, Song, BinX wrote:
>> V2:
>> Update function name, add more detail description.
>> V1:
>> Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter
>>
>> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
>> Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com>
>> ---
>> .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h | 5 ++++
>> .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644
>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE (32+9)
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS (32+10)
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN (32+11)
>> +//
>> +// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
>> +// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it
>> +// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function.
>> +//
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE (32+12)
>>
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL BIT27
>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644
>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> @@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> + Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
>> +
>> + @param[in] Feature Pointer to CPU feature
>> +
>> + @retval TRUE The CPU feature is valid.
>> + @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
>> +**/
>> +BOOLEAN
>> +RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid (
>> + IN UINT32 Feature
>> + )
>> +{
>> + UINT32 Data;
>> +
>> + Data = Feature;
>> + Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
>> + //
>> + // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
>> + // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below.
>> + //
>> + if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
>> + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
>> + return FALSE;
>> + }
>> + return TRUE;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask buffer.
>>
>> @param[in] FeatureMask Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
>> @@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
>>
>> VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
>> Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
>> + ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature));
>> while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
>> ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
>> != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
>>
>
> The consensus thus far seems to be that we should not add a separate
> _MAX macro for this purpose. I don't understand why -- in my opinion it
> would be easier to update the macro in one place only.
>
> Now, I realize we have a library class header file here, and a library
> instance. Those things are separate; it is conceivable that another
> library instance is developed independently, and thus we should not tie
> the MAX feature of *all* library instances to the same central class header.
>
> However, this separation is already being violated in this patch: the
> RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid() function is an implementation
> detail of the (currently only one) library instance. Thus, the lib class
> header should not refer to it, even in a comment.
>
> So, I don't understand why we can't just add a _MAX macro. The central
> library instance could use _MAX; all other (out of tree) instances would
> not use _MAX.
>
I do not understand either:)
But if the change doesn't expose more interfaces (_MAX in this case), I
feel safe because we can change much freely in future.
> Anyway, this doesn't mean the patch is not correct.
>
> Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>
--
Thanks,
Ray
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter
2017-12-13 15:34 ` 答复: " Fan Jeff
@ 2017-12-14 1:41 ` Song, BinX
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Song, BinX @ 2017-12-14 1:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fan Jeff, Ni, Ruiyu, Laszlo Ersek, edk2-devel@lists.01.org; +Cc: Dong, Eric
Hi All,
Thanks for your suggestion, I will update a V3 patch.
Best Regards,
Bell Song
From: Fan Jeff [mailto:vanjeff_919@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:35 PM
To: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Song, BinX <binx.song@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>
Subject: 答复: [edk2] [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter
I agree to add one _MAX #define in library instance implementation instead of in class header file.
Jeff
________________________________
From: edk2-devel <edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org>> on behalf of Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@Intel.com<mailto:ruiyu.ni@Intel.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4:49:01 PM
To: Laszlo Ersek; Song, BinX; edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
Cc: Dong, Eric
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter
On 12/13/2017 4:44 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 12/13/17 03:35, Song, BinX wrote:
>> V2:
>> Update function name, add more detail description.
>> V1:
>> Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter
>>
>> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com<mailto:eric.dong@intel.com>>
>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>>
>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
>> Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com<mailto:binx.song@intel.com>>
>> ---
>> .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h | 5 ++++
>> .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644
>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE (32+9)
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS (32+10)
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN (32+11)
>> +//
>> +// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
>> +// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it
>> +// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function.
>> +//
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE (32+12)
>>
>> #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL BIT27
>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644
>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> @@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> + Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
>> +
>> + @param[in] Feature Pointer to CPU feature
>> +
>> + @retval TRUE The CPU feature is valid.
>> + @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
>> +**/
>> +BOOLEAN
>> +RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid (
>> + IN UINT32 Feature
>> + )
>> +{
>> + UINT32 Data;
>> +
>> + Data = Feature;
>> + Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
>> + //
>> + // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
>> + // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below.
>> + //
>> + if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
>> + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
>> + return FALSE;
>> + }
>> + return TRUE;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask buffer.
>>
>> @param[in] FeatureMask Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
>> @@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
>>
>> VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
>> Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
>> + ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature));
>> while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
>> ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
>> != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
>>
>
> The consensus thus far seems to be that we should not add a separate
> _MAX macro for this purpose. I don't understand why -- in my opinion it
> would be easier to update the macro in one place only.
>
> Now, I realize we have a library class header file here, and a library
> instance. Those things are separate; it is conceivable that another
> library instance is developed independently, and thus we should not tie
> the MAX feature of *all* library instances to the same central class header.
>
> However, this separation is already being violated in this patch: the
> RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid() function is an implementation
> detail of the (currently only one) library instance. Thus, the lib class
> header should not refer to it, even in a comment.
>
> So, I don't understand why we can't just add a _MAX macro. The central
> library instance could use _MAX; all other (out of tree) instances would
> not use _MAX.
>
I do not understand either:)
But if the change doesn't expose more interfaces (_MAX in this case), I
feel safe because we can change much freely in future.
> Anyway, this doesn't mean the patch is not correct.
>
> Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>>
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>
--
Thanks,
Ray
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-12-14 1:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-12-13 2:35 [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter Song, BinX
2017-12-13 2:42 ` Ni, Ruiyu
2017-12-13 8:44 ` Laszlo Ersek
2017-12-13 8:49 ` Ni, Ruiyu
2017-12-13 15:34 ` 答复: " Fan Jeff
2017-12-14 1:41 ` Song, BinX
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox