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

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] x86/boot: Refactor BIOS/PVH start


  • To: Frediano Ziglio <frediano.ziglio@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 12:38:19 +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: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 10:38:24 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 26.09.2024 11:24, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 7:50 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 25.09.2024 21:33, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 25/09/2024 7:00 am, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
>>>> @@ -449,62 +458,40 @@ __pvh_start:
>>>>          mov     %ecx, %es
>>>>          mov     %ecx, %ss
>>>>
>>>> -        /* Skip bootloader setup and bios setup, go straight to 
>>>> trampoline */
>>>> -        movb    $1, sym_esi(pvh_boot)
>>>> -        movb    $1, sym_esi(skip_realmode)
>>>> +        /* Load null selector to unused segment registers. */
>>>> +        xor     %ecx, %ecx
>>>> +        mov     %ecx, %fs
>>>> +        mov     %ecx, %gs
>>>
>>> Honestly, the more I look at this, the more bizarre it is.
>>>
>>> We should just set up %fs/gs like we do %ds/es, which in this case is
>>> simply to drop the comment and the xor.
>>
>> What's bizarre here? As long as we don't use %fs/%gs, it doesn't matter
>> much what we set them to. So yes, they may be set to what %ds etc are set
>> to, but they may as well be marked unusable. Documentation-wise that's
>> cleaner imo, as down the road - when a need to use one arises - it then
>> won't require auditing of all code to figure where the register(s) is(are)
>> actually used (just to find: nowhere). Even if a comment to this effect
>> was left here, I for one wouldn't trust it in a couple of years time, but
>> rather fear it went stale.
> 
> Hi,
>   are you against this change and asking to roll it back?

Well, first of all I'm hoping for a reply by Andrew. Maybe I'm overlooking
something. As it stands right now I indeed think we'd be better off keeping
nul selectors in %fs and %gs.

Jan



 


Rackspace

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