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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Simplify efi_arch_cpu() a little


  • To: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:47:29 +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: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Daniel P . Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gene Bright <gene@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 13:47:36 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 24.07.2024 15:28, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Wed Jul 24, 2024 at 6:42 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 23.07.2024 15:47, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>> On Mon Jul 22, 2024 at 11:18 AM BST, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> +    if ( (eax >> 16) != 0x8000 || eax < 0x80000000U )
>>>> +        blexit(L"In 64bit mode, but no extended CPUID leaves?!?");
>>>
>>> I'm not sure about the condition even for the old code. If eax had 
>>> 0x90000000
>>> (because new convention appeared 10y in the future), then there would be
>>> extended leaves but we would be needlessly bailing out. Why not simply check
>>> that eax < 0x80000001 in here?
>>
>> eax = 0x90000000 is in leaf group 0x9000, not in the extended leaf group
>> (0x8000). The splitting into groups may not be written down very well,
>> but you can see the pattern in e.g. groups 0x8086 and 0xc000 also being
>> used (by non-Intel non-AMD hardware), without those really being extended
>> leaves in the sense that 0x8000xxxx are.
>>
>> Jan
> 
> The code is checking for a number specifically in the extended group, but
> that's the output of leaf 0x80000000 which is defined to be just that.
> 
> AMD: "The value returned in EAX provides the largest extended function number
>       supported by the processor"
> 
> Intel: "Maximum Input Value for Extended Function CPUID Information."
> 
> Unless there are quirks I don't know about (I admit it's not unlikely) I just
> don't see why this condition needs to be anything else than a check that the
> maximum function number is bigger than any of the leaves we read further 
> ahead.
> 
> If the number happens to start with 8000, that'd be fine; but there's no 
> reason
> to bail out if it was 8001.

How do you know? We'll learn once someone starts populating that leaf
group. It _may_ be the continuation of extended leaves then (once the
other 64k were all consumed, i.e. in perhaps hundreds of years). Just
take again the case where the 8086 groups is populated: What if there
[80000000].eax = 8086yyyy? That'll be wrong, as 8086 forms its own group.
So no, I'm similarly unaware of quirks, but with this we're trying to
guard ourselves against some entirely bogus output (from all we know
today).

Jan



 


Rackspace

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