lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/5] efi/x86: Make efi32_pe_entry more readable
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 05:57:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 17:54, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 08:49:17AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 00:04, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > call 1f
> > > > -1: pop %ebp
> > > > - subl $1b, %ebp
> > > > +1: pop %ebx
> > > > + subl $1b, %ebx
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > + movl %ebx, %ebp // startup_32 for efi32_pe_stub_entry
> > >
> > > The code that follows efi32_pe_stub_entry still expects the runtime
> > > displacement in %ebp, so we'll need to pass that in another way here.
> > >
> > > > jmp efi32_pe_stub_entry
> >
> > Didn't follow -- what do you mean by runtime displacement?
> >
> > efi32_pe_stub_entry expects the runtime address of startup_32 to be in
> > %ebp, but with the changes for keeping the frame pointer in %ebp, I
> > changed the runtime address to be in %ebx instead. Hence I added that
> > movl %ebx, %ebp to put it in %ebp just before calling efi32_pe_stub_entry.
> > That should be fine, no?
>
> But how does that work with:
>
> SYM_INNER_LABEL(efi32_pe_stub_entry, SYM_L_LOCAL)
> movl %ecx, efi32_boot_args(%ebp)
> movl %edx, efi32_boot_args+4(%ebp)
> movb $0, efi_is64(%ebp)
>
>
> ?

Why wouldn't it work? Before this change, efi32_pe_entry set %ebp to
startup_32 (via the call/pop/sub sequence), so efi32_pe_stub_entry was
entered with %ebp == startup_32.

After this change, the call/pop/sub sequence puts startup_32 into %ebx,
and then I copy it into %ebp just before branching to efi32_pe_stub_entry.
So everything should continue to work the same way as before?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-02 18:02    [W:0.066 / U:2.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site