From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.132.183.28; helo=mx1.redhat.com; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (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 A84382119073C for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:57:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F7CA356FD; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-120-171.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.171]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1CA9608C4; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:57:01 +0000 (UTC) To: Jordan Justen , Andrew Fish Cc: Mike Kinney , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" References: <154253322290.3729.10762860453718631884@jljusten-skl> <81FDCF97-4145-4A7D-93B9-70A4D8B505FF@apple.com> <154259000092.7306.2206833534307673295@jljusten-skl> <154265500096.11985.13073430907870235751@jljusten-skl> <154266655812.13241.5433680527994241263@jljusten-skl> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <9a8c1b57-b9fe-c6da-98ad-b6060f3ea2c6@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:57:00 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <154266655812.13241.5433680527994241263@jljusten-skl> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: EmulatorPkg Unix Host Segmentation fault. X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:57:03 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/19/18 23:29, Jordan Justen wrote: > On 2018-11-19 13:22:27, Andrew Fish wrote: >> I seem to remember we hit an issue like this a long time ago? Do you >> remember the details? Maybe it was we needed to write the >> TempRamSupport code in assembly? > > It does also creep up there, which is why we also adjust ebp/rbp in > the TemporaryRamMigration function in OVMF. > > In that case, it helps prevent the stack from reverting to the old > stack when TemporaryRamMigration is returning to it's caller. (As > opposed to after it returns, which I think is what is happening now.) Right, in retrospect, I should have been clearer about this (= with myself as well), when pointing out the commit that added the BP massaging to OVMF's temp RAM migration. I just wanted to point out that the BP massaging hadn't always been there in the OVMF code, so it wasn't "part of the original design" or some such. Thanks Laszlo