[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZQc8U36oL/NES6oo@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 19:50:11 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...gle.com>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Evgeniy Baskov <baskov@...ras.ru>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] x86/boot: Rework PE header generation
* Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 11:11, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > > So, the first 8 patches broke the x86-64-defconfig-ish Qemu bzImage bootup,
> > > > > due to the 8th patch:
> > > > >
> > > > > 988b52b207a9fe74c3699bda8c2256714926b94b is the first bad commit
> > > > > commit 988b52b207a9fe74c3699bda8c2256714926b94b
> > > > > Author: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> > > > > Date: Tue Sep 12 09:01:01 2023 +0000
> > > > >
> > > > > x86/boot: Define setup size in linker script
> > > > >
> > > > > I've removed it for now - but this side effect was not expected.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, definitely not expected. I tested various combinations of i386 /
> > > > x86_64 built with GCC / Clang doing EFI or BIOS boot.
> > > >
> > > > I'll rebase the remaining stuff onto -tip and see if I can reproduce this.
> > >
> > > This is actually quite bizarre. x86_64_defconfig has
> > > CONFIG_EFI_MIXED=y and i tested that this change produces the exact
> > > same bzImage binary in that case.
> > >
> > > Could you send me the .config and the QEMU command line perhaps?
> >
> > So the patch below is the delta between v2 and v3 - that is expected
> > to fix the bzImage boot crash, right?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> ld.bfd does something unexpected [to me] here, and the resulting value
> turns out not to be a multiple of 512 at all.
>
> With this tweak, my claim that this patch does not affect the binary
> bzImage at all actually holds for ld.bfd as well (provided that
> CONFIG_EFI_MIXED=y and CONFIG_LOCAL_VERSION_AUTO is disabled)
Ok - it boots & works fine for me too now, with the full series applied.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists