* [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