linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: Add UV bios call infrastructure v2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 2 Oct 2008 16:02:00 +0800
From:	"huang ying" <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
To:	"Russ Anderson" <rja@....com>
Cc:	"Huang Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Jack Steiner" <steiner@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: Add UV bios call infrastructure v2

Hi, Russ,

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Russ Anderson <rja@....com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 09:21:35AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>> On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 15:02 -0500, Russ Anderson wrote:
>> > Index: linux/include/asm-x86/efi.h
>> > ===================================================================
>> > --- linux.orig/include/asm-x86/efi.h        2008-09-26 14:13:24.000000000 -0500
>> > +++ linux/include/asm-x86/efi.h     2008-09-26 14:13:36.000000000 -0500
>> > @@ -49,6 +49,20 @@ extern u64 efi_call5(void *fp, u64 arg1,
>> >  extern u64 efi_call6(void *fp, u64 arg1, u64 arg2, u64 arg3,
>> >                  u64 arg4, u64 arg5, u64 arg6);
>> >
>> > +
>> > +#ifndef CONFIG_EFI
>> > +/*
>> > + * IF EFI is not configured, have the EFI calls return -ENOSYS.
>> > + */
>> > +#define efi_call0(_f)                                      (-ENOSYS)
>> > +#define efi_call1(_f, _a1)                         (-ENOSYS)
>> > +#define efi_call2(_f, _a1, _a2)                            (-ENOSYS)
>> > +#define efi_call3(_f, _a1, _a2, _a3)                       (-ENOSYS)
>> > +#define efi_call4(_f, _a1, _a2, _a3, _a4)          (-ENOSYS)
>> > +#define efi_call5(_f, _a1, _a2, _a3, _a4, _a5)             (-ENOSYS)
>> > +#define efi_call6(_f, _a1, _a2, _a3, _a4, _a5, _a6)        (-ENOSYS)
>> > +#endif /* CONFIG_EFI */
>> > +
>> >  #define efi_call_phys0(f)                  \
>> >     efi_call0((void *)(f))
>> >  #define efi_call_phys1(f, a1)                      \
>>
>> efi_call_virt<n> and efi_call_phys<n> is the API instead of efi_call<n>.
>
> #define efi_call_virt6(f, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6)                       \
>        efi_call6((void *)(efi.systab->runtime->f), (u64)(a1), (u64)(a2), \
>                  (u64)(a3), (u64)(a4), (u64)(a5), (u64)(a6))
>
> efi_call_virt6() uses efi.systab->runtime->f.
> My call needs to use uv_systab, not efi.systab.

Yes. efi_call_virt6() is tied with standard EFI runtime services, so
it may be not suitable for your need. What you need is just to do
calling convention converting, like efi_call6 does. So I think it is
better to just use your current implementation.

Acked-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>

Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/