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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 8/8] efi: drop original xen.efi code and build mechanism

>>> On 10.07.18 at 13:35, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 09:16:38AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 06.07.18 at 16:46, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > OK, xen.mb.efi does not need relocs because:
>> >   - we generate PE file from xen-syms file like we do with ELF output;
>> >     so, the code in the PE file is the same like in the ELF file;
>> >     hence, if ELF works why PE should not,
>> >   - all addressing is relative to %rip as it is in ELF file,
>> What are the several hundred base relocs in xen.efi doing then? Sure
>> some of them wouldn't really be needed, but I doubt that's true for
>> all of them. The first and foremost case of non-RIP-relative addressing
>> is data with static initializers pointing elsewhere in the image. These
>> need relocations applied to work.
>> Once again - a fundamental criteria is whether your binary can be used
>> in place of the current xen.efi. I can't convince myself that you've
>> actually tried that out. At the very least I'd expect the static array in
>> PrintErrMesg() to present problems here.
> Ugh... You are right. I forgot about that. Sadly the problem applies to
> the EFI boot code in the xen.gz too. So, both things have to be fixed.
> At first sight it seems to me that we can leave relocs in the xen-syms
> and then attach them to the xen.mb.efi/xen.gz somehow. It would be nice
> to do that just only for the EFI boot code. Should not we put it in
> separate section then? Another question is the size of the .reloc section.
> We do not know it in advance. So, probably we should build the code in
> two steps as we do now. Or prealloc a static place and fill it later.
> This way we would have just one phase build.

Any static allocation/reservation scheme is wasteful at first and eventually
not allocating/reserving enough space. Unless there's a way to reasonably
well estimate the size ahead of time, I'd be opposed to such a model. As
to a separate section - sure, why not? Relocations are in a separate section
in xen.efi as well.

> Or another option. Add Xen mappings in the early EFI boot code. However,
> it seems crazy and may not work on all EFI implementations. Hmmm...
> Have to check the UEFI spec...

I'm afraid I don't understand anyway what you think of here.

> By the way, I am not sure why mkreloc is executed twice. Could you
> explain that?

Its needed as many times as we link a binary, minus the very first time,
where stub (dummy) objects are used. I don't see how you think we
could get away with just one invocation. Are you thinking we could get
away with fewer linking steps?
- Link step 0 produces a binary without kallsyms table, but with all
  symbols. Hence a symbol table generated from it will have the correct
  number of entries and hence the correct size.
- Link step 1 produces a binary with kallsyms table taken from the
  step 0 binary. This results in all addresses in the resulting binary now
  being correct (no more code/data is going to be added), but the
  symbol table itself is wrong (as coming from step 0).
- Link step 2 produces a binary with a _correct_ kallsyms table.
If we omitted relocations from step 1, we'd risk other addresses
changing in step 2 (maybe this is just a theoretical risk, but anyway).


Xen-devel mailing list



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