From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web12.39233.1628873513528715398
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Fri, 13 Aug 2021 09:51:53 -0700
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=fail reason="body hash did not verify" header.i=@linux.microsoft.com header.s=default header.b=OL7Vb9vF;
 spf=pass (domain: linux.microsoft.com, ip: 13.77.154.182, mailfrom: mikuback@linux.microsoft.com)
Received: from [10.0.0.120] (c-73-27-179-174.hsd1.fl.comcast.net [73.27.179.174])
	by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6050420A597B;
	Fri, 13 Aug 2021 09:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 6050420A597B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com;
	s=default; t=1628873512;
	bh=v9emL6H5MjsBTbPMs9DQOOYE0aV632rnbkL5VVS+m1Q=;
	h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=OL7Vb9vFdC0f2AP27DspFH+eNJ/+W9pthtG2DzGCg1AayKCRHqWIJLljXxzTBVy0b
	 WqTrL82JxVfCXtNU+4iFny5xPlOmj96AJq9CBRBefLzVECpqjNp4VKprsRKHB49/gy
	 mRH2rDExzA0S/rbspPtzbKwTnlBODOkxhD4Op0Pw=
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] SecCore evacuation in PeiCore?
To: devel@edk2.groups.io, mhaeuser@posteo.de
References: <b8b4e990-5ee6-7152-3806-0f9d30911ce0@posteo.de>
From: "Michael Kubacki" <mikuback@linux.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <bcfad399-0d22-2b51-2669-2bbbdf0819ec@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:51:51 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b8b4e990-5ee6-7152-3806-0f9d30911ce0@posteo.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Marvin,

I apologize for the delayed response, I missed this message earlier. The=20
function was called from EvacuateTempRam() in the initial set of patches:
[PATCH 1/6] MdeModulePkg/PeiCore: Enable T-RAM evacuation in PeiCore=20
(CVE-2019-11098) (groups.io) <https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/61823>

I was not involved in the patch series on the mailing list (job role=20
change at the time) but as a comment in that patch notes, there was an=20
inconsistency observed in PE32 section alignment in SEC modules. I don't=20
see where this was resolved other than the calls being removed later in=20
the series. SecCore migration would not occur implicitly in the PeiCore=20
flow but there is functionality for SEC data migration in=20
UefiCpuPkg/SecMigrationPei.

Based on what I see now, I'd be happy to send a patch to remove=20
MigrateSecModulesInFv().

Thanks,
Michael

On 8/7/2021 2:54 PM, Marvin H=C3=A4user wrote:
> Good day everyone,
> Good day Michael,
>
> The commit that introduced T-RAM evacuation [1] also introduced the=20
> function "MigrateSecModulesInFv()". It also is explicitly mentioned as=20
> part of the control flow in the commit message. As far as I can see,=20
> since then till today this function has never been called anywhere.=20
> Was this some draft function that accidentally made it into the patch,=20
> or did the caller get lost somewhere? The description makes sense to=20
> me and I'm not experienced enough with the PeiCore control flow to=20
> tell whether the PEIM migration somehow covers SecCore implicitly.=20
> Also I noticed it only supports SecCore in a PE/COFF section, not a TE=20
> section. Is there a rationale for that?
>
> Thank you for your time!
>
> Best regards,
> Marvin
>
>
> [1]=20
> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/9bedaec05b7b8ba9aee248361bb61a85=
a26726cb
>
>
>=20
>