Re: [edk2] Corrupted EFI region

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 08/05/13 16:03, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 03:39:31PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> My question was: is my understanding correct that you only see this
>> problem with "-enable-kvm"? Because,
>>
>> On 08/01/13 18:49, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> so I'm seeing this funny thing where an EFI region changes when we
>>> enter efi_enter_virtual_mode when booting with edk2 on kvm. Here's
>>> the diff:
>>
>> You said "on kvm", and provided a diff. I think (hope) I understand the
>> environment you've denoted with "after", but what's your "before"? The
>> absence of "-enable-kvm", or something else?
> 
> Ah, I see.
> 
> So 'before' is the initial dump of the EFI regions, very early during
> boot:

<snip>

> and with 'after' I've denoted the dump of the EFI regions a second time,
> a bit later, when we enter efi_enter_virtual_mode():

<snip>

> 
> during the *same* boot.
> 
> So, it is one boot but two dumps of the EFI regions. And yes, I'm
> booting with the 'kvm' executable which has '-enable-kvm'

Okay. Thanks for clarifying it.

> 
>> What's the purpose of that series? Can you please provide a link (if
>> you posted versions of it already)?
> 
> Not yet posted but working on it.
> 
> The idea is to map the runtime regions at stable addresses so that when
> we kexec a kernel, it can use runtime services too. And we have to do
> that because of the braindead design of SetVirtualAddressMap() being
> callable only once per boot.

I wouldn't call the design of SetVirtualAddressMap() braindead.

I'd rather call kexec unique and somewhat unexpected :)

> 
>>> So what basically happens is the end boundary of the region becomes the
>>> start, practically turning it into a 0-size one.
>>
>> ... and you guys suspect that some firmware code is responsible, code
>> that runs between the initial memory map dump, and efi_enter_virtual_mode():
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/31/550
> 
> I wouldn't wonder if we f*cked it up again like the last time. I'll give
> it a long hard look.

Ah sorry, by "and you guys suspect" I didn't mean to imply anything
between the lines, I was simply trying to ascertain your working idea :)

Laszlo