[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Booting signed xen.efi through shim
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> 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. So I had made some progress using the shim from https://github.com/rhboot/shim, it actually has been able to jump into the signed xen.efi. However, Xen bails with the message "Unsupported relocation type" which is in efi_arch_relocate_image. Tamas _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |