[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/EFI: Fix detection of buildid


  • To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 09:23:36 +0200
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Daniel P . Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 07:23:49 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 06.06.2025 09:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.06.2025 19:01, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 05/06/2025 2:24 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 05.06.2025 14:14, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2025 1:02 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 05.06.2025 13:16, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> This really is a property of being a PE32+ binary, and nothing to do
>>>> with EFI.
>>> Which still can be checked for without having this code path being taken
>>> for xen.gz, too: You could e.g. check for &efi > &_end. That's firmly an
>>> image property (yet I expect you're going to sigh about yet another hack).
>>
>> It's all hacks, but no.
>>
>> I'm amazed MISRA hasn't spotted that we've got a global `struct efi
>> efi;` and a label named efi, creating an alias for the object with it
>> out of bounds in the compiled image.  But even then, it's based on
>> XEN_BUILD_EFI not XEN_BUILD_PE and does not distinguish the property
>> that matters.
> 
> The use of XEN_BUILD_EFI in the linker script should have been switched
> to XEN_BUILD_PE when the split was introduced.
> 
>> But the argument I'm going to make this this:  Why do you want a check,
>> even if you can find a correct one (and as said before, I cannot)?
>>
>> This function is run exactly once.  We've excluded "nothing given by the
>> toolchain", and excluded "what the toolchain gave us was not the
>> expected ELF note".  The only thing left (modulo toolchain bugs) is the
>> CodeView region, and if it's not a valid CodeView region then we've
>> wasted a handful of cycles.
> 
> Two reasons: Having code which cannot possibly do anything useful isn't
> good. Misra calls the latest the body of the inner if() "unreachable code"
> and objects to the presence of such in a build. (I'm pretty sure Eclair
> wouldn't spot it, but that doesn't eliminate this being a violation of
> the respective rule.)
> 
> And then, based on your reasoning above, why don't you also drop the
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86?

..., saying in the description "we can as well check for this uniformly"

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.