[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200302165359.GA2599505@rani.riverdale.lan>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:54:17 -0500
From: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] efi/x86: Make efi32_pe_entry more readable
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 08:49:17AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 00:04, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.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?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists