From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: Fix BIOS memory corruption on
 certain IBM systems
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:59:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CEC52C0D.692F1%keir.xen@gmail.com>
References: <529F16450200007800109EC4@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <keir.xen@gmail.com>) id 1VoHfe-00054H-Ay
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:59:38 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id q58so15504270wes.16
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Wed, 04 Dec 2013 10:59:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <529F16450200007800109EC4@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 04/12/2013 10:47, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

>>>>           * Declare that our target operating mode is long mode.
>>>>           * Initialise 32-bit registers since some buggy BIOSes depend on
>>>> it.
>>>>           */
>>>> +        xor     %ecx,%ecx
>>>> +        xor     %edx,%edx
>>>> +        xor     %esi,%esi
>>>> +        xor     %edi,%edi
>>>> +        xor     %ebp,%ebp
>>>>          movl    $0xec00,%eax      # declare target operating mode
>>>>          movl    $0x0002,%ebx      # long mode
>>>>          int     $0x15
>>> ... I can't really see the value of the change here: If we're to
>>> work around theoretical BIOS bugs, we'd need to do this prior to
>>> each BIOS call. That's surely overkill. Therefore let's focus on
>>> what is needed to work around _known_ BIOS bugs.
>> 
>> I admit that I was leaning on the cautious side with these changes.
>> 
>> I can take them out if you think that would be better, but given this
>> int was already flagged as buggy in some BIOSes, and we have found
>> another case, I think covering all GPRs is the safer option.
> 
> As said - I doubt this would help much. I'd really prefer at least this
> part of the patch to be taken out again. Unless Keir is specifically of
> the opposite opinion...

The change does kind of fit with the comment immediately above though.
Overall I don't really care that much either way.

 -- Keir