[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/14] libxc: Rework extra module initialisation
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:29:36PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:52:08AM +0100, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:55:23PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > > > diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_dom_hvmloader.c > > > > b/tools/libxc/xc_dom_hvmloader.c > > > > index 330d5e8..da8b995 100644 > > > > --- a/tools/libxc/xc_dom_hvmloader.c > > > > +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_dom_hvmloader.c > > > > @@ -129,98 +129,52 @@ static elf_errorstatus > > > > xc_dom_parse_hvm_kernel(struct xc_dom_image *dom) > > > > return rc; > > > > } > > > > > > > > -static int modules_init(struct xc_dom_image *dom, > > > > - uint64_t vend, struct elf_binary *elf, > > > > - uint64_t *mstart_out, uint64_t *mend_out) > > > > +static int module_init_one(struct xc_dom_image *dom, > > > > + struct xc_hvm_firmware_module *module, > > > > + char *name) > > > > { > > > > -#define MODULE_ALIGN 1UL << 7 > > > > -#define MB_ALIGN 1UL << 20 > > > > -#define MKALIGN(x, a) (((uint64_t)(x) + (a) - 1) & ~(uint64_t)((a) - > > > > 1)) > > > > - uint64_t total_len = 0, offset1 = 0; > > > > + struct xc_dom_seg seg; > > > > + void *dest; > > > > > > > > - if ( dom->acpi_module.length == 0 && dom->smbios_module.length == > > > > 0 ) > > > > - return 0; > > > > - > > > > - /* Find the total length for the firmware modules with a > > > > reasonable large > > > > - * alignment size to align each the modules. > > > > - */ > > > > - total_len = MKALIGN(dom->acpi_module.length, MODULE_ALIGN); > > > > - offset1 = total_len; > > > > - total_len += MKALIGN(dom->smbios_module.length, MODULE_ALIGN); > > > > - > > > > - /* Want to place the modules 1Mb+change behind the loader image. */ > > > > - *mstart_out = MKALIGN(elf->pend, MB_ALIGN) + (MB_ALIGN); > > > > - *mend_out = *mstart_out + total_len; > > > > - > > > > - if ( *mend_out > vend ) > > > > - return -1; > > > > - > > > > - if ( dom->acpi_module.length != 0 ) > > > > - dom->acpi_module.guest_addr_out = *mstart_out; > > > > - if ( dom->smbios_module.length != 0 ) > > > > - dom->smbios_module.guest_addr_out = *mstart_out + offset1; > > > > + if ( module->length ) > > > > + { > > > > + if ( xc_dom_alloc_segment(dom, &seg, name, 0, module->length) ) > > > > + goto err; > > > > + dest = xc_dom_seg_to_ptr(dom, &seg); > > > > + if ( dest == NULL ) > > > > + { > > > > + DOMPRINTF("%s: xc_dom_seg_to_ptr(dom, &seg) => NULL", > > > > + __FUNCTION__); > > > > + goto err; > > > > + } > > > > + memcpy(dest, module->data, module->length); > > > > + module->guest_addr_out = seg.vstart; > > > > + if ( module->guest_addr_out > UINT32_MAX || > > > > + module->guest_addr_out + module->length > UINT32_MAX ) > > > > + { > > > > + DOMPRINTF("%s: Module %s would be loaded abrove 4GB", > > > > + __FUNCTION__, name); > > > > + goto err; > > > > + } > > > > > > One question: > > > > > > Can this check also account for MMIO hole below 4G? Maybe use > > > dom->mmio_size? > > > > Yes, I guess I can check against dom->mmio_start. Should I also check > > that mmio_start have reasonable value? (<4G, and not 0x0) Or is > > mmio_start is already supposed to have a good value? > > > > mmio_start should already have a sane value here -- or at least I hope > so. The sanity of mmio_start should be checked where it is assigned. Ok, I'll use dom->mmio_start instead of UINT32_MAX, and probably add an assert() on the values expected in mmio_start. Thanks, -- Anthony PERARD _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |