From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 209.132.183.28, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by groups.io with SMTP; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 12:20:51 -0700 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 371AE20EB; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-116-196.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.196]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32C9D10018F8; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] q35: lpc: allow to lock down 128K RAM at default SMBASE address From: "Laszlo Ersek" To: Igor Mammedov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: yingwen.chen@intel.com, devel@edk2.groups.io, phillip.goerl@oracle.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, jiewen.yao@intel.com, jun.nakajima@intel.com, michael.d.kinney@intel.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, rfc@edk2.groups.io, joao.m.martins@oracle.com References: <20190905154925.30478-1-imammedo@redhat.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 21:20:45 +0200 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: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.71]); Mon, 09 Sep 2019 19:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/09/19 21:15, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > ... I've done some testing too. Applying the QEMU patch on top of > 89ea03a7dc83, my plan was: > > - do not change OVMF, just see if it continues booting with the QEMU > patch > > - then negotiate bit#1 too, in step (1a) -- this is when I'd expect (3a) > to break. > > Unfortunately, the result is worse than that; even without negotiating > bit#1 (i.e. in the baseline test), the firmware crashes (reboots) in > step (3a). I've checked "info mtree", and all occurences of > "smbase-blackhole" and "smbase-blackhole" are marked [disabled]. I'm not > sure what's wrong with the baseline test (i.e. without negotiating > bit#1). If I drop the patch (build QEMU at 89ea03a7dc83), then things > work fine. Sorry, there's a typo above: I pasted "smbase-blackhole" twice. The second instance was meant to be "smbase-window". I checked all instances of both regions in the info mtree output, I just fumbled the pasting. Thanks Laszlo