[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Booting signed xen.efi through shim
>>> On 13.09.17 at 16:40, <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 13.09.17 at 07:27, <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>Sections: >>>Idx Name Size VMA LMA File off >>>Algn >>> 0 .text 0017a1ba ffff82d080200000 ffff82d080200000 00001000 >>> 2**12 >>> CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, CODE >>> 1 .rodata 000826a0 ffff82d080400000 ffff82d080400000 0017c000 >>> 2**5 >>> CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA >>> 2 .buildid 00000035 ffff82d0804826a0 ffff82d0804826a0 001fe6a0 >>> 2**2 >>> CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA >>> 3 .init 00077df0 ffff82d080600000 ffff82d080600000 001ff000 >>> 2**12 >>> CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, CODE, DATA >>> 4 .data.re 0000aa40 ffff82d080800000 ffff82d080800000 00277000 >>> 2**7 >>> CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA >>> 5 .data 000105a8 ffff82d08080b000 ffff82d08080b000 00282000 >>> 2**12 >>> CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA >>> 6 .bss 00143280 ffff82d080820000 ffff82d080820000 00000000 >>> 2**4 >>> ALLOC, RELOC >> >> Objdump is apparently ignoring a section attribute bit here - my >> own utility properly prints "bss" in addition to "read" (which presumably >> matches "ALLOC" above, albeit that's a bogus translation apparently >> applying ELF semantics to COFF). You'll want to check that bit 7 in the >> section attributes is set. I'm also puzzled by "RELOC", but I do see a >> matching bit dumped here; not sure why that's being set. > > Looking at it with readpe I get: > > Name: .bss > Virtual Address: 0x820000 > Physical Address: 0x143280 > Size: 0 (0 bytes) > Pointer To Data: 0 > Relocations: 0 > Characteristics: 0xc1000080 > contains uninitialized data > contains extended relocations > is readable > is writable > > So bit 7 is set AFAICT. Good. >> It is certainly the case that .bss style sections are expected to have a >> zero file offset, as there's no data for such sections inside the file (note >> the missing "CONTENTS" above. So I would conclude that, unless the >> bss flag really got lost, it's a shim loader bug. Since other people can >> load xen.efi with the shim, that might be a problem with the particular >> version you're using. > > Perhaps, I'm using the latest master > (e22a7b5b772dba6588dd955dc017e572f7e29784) from > https://github.com/mjg59/shim, the one being linked to on the wiki. If > there is a known good version, I would be happy to give that a shot > and see if I can get it working. I have no idea. What I'd suggest you to try is to zap that stray "contains extended relocations" flag. I've written down to go hunt for where it comes from, but I don't have the time to do that right away. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |