From: Arvind Sankar <email@example.com> To: Ard Biesheuvel <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Arvind Sankar <email@example.com>, linux-efi <firstname.lastname@example.org>, linux-arm-kernel <email@example.com>, Laszlo Ersek <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Leif Lindholm <email@example.com>, Peter Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Matthew Garrett <email@example.com>, Alexander Graf <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Daniel Kiper <email@example.com>, Hans de Goede <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Michael Brown <email@example.com>, Ingo Molnar <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] efi/x86: add support for generic EFI mixed mode boot Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 19:10:49 -0500 Message-ID: <20200214001048.GA3054227@rani.riverdale.lan> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu9Azn9oGHaTqv+-Foj4=b5Y-JradERq4NC5V9XOaVjSKQ@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:36:14PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 19:47, Arvind Sankar <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 05:55:44PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 18:53, Arvind Sankar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > As an alternative to the new section, how about having a CONFIG option > > > > to emit the 64-bit kernel with a 32-bit PE header instead, which would > > > > point to efi32_pe_entry? In that case it could be directly loaded by > > > > existing firmware already. You could even have a tool that can mangle an > > > > existing bzImage's header from 64-bit to 32-bit, say using the newly > > > > added kernel_info structure to record the existence and location of > > > > efi32_pe_entry. > > > > > > > > > > That wouldn't work with, say, signed distro kernels. > > > > No, the idea would be that the distro would distribute two signed > > images, one 32-bit and one 64-bit, which are identical except for the > > header. At install time, the installer chooses based on the system's > > firmware bit-ness. > > > > I guess it would be possible, but then we'd need two different images > while today, we can run the same image on both kinds of firmwares. The > only thing I am trying to do is remove all the quirky bootparams stuff > from the loader so that we can switch to LoadImage Yeah, but doing that will allow you to boot directly from firmware on existing machines, and only one image needs to be chosen at install time, so it just adds a few MiB to the package. I guess most people will still use a boot manager or loader that can be easily enhanced to use LoadImage and the new section, but it would be nice to have the option to avoid that. > > > > > > > > Also, the PE header can live anywhere inside the image, right? Is there > > > > any reason to struggle to shoehorn it into the "boot sector"? > > > > > > It cannot. It must live outside a region described by the section headers. > > > > It could still be inserted after .setup, or at the very end of the file, no? > > The PE/COFF spec mentions that the COFF header needs to follow the > signature. Also, the SizeOfHeaders field would become somewhat > ambiguous if the header is split up like that. Ah, the definition of SizeOfHeaders doesn't make much sense if the headers weren't contiguous with the MS-DOS stub. I guess they just wanted the MS-DOS stub to potentially vary in size, but still want the header to immediately follow it, drat.
next prev parent reply index Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-02-13 14:59 Ard Biesheuvel 2020-02-13 14:59 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] efi/x86: drop redundant .bss section Ard Biesheuvel 2020-02-13 14:59 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] efi/x86: add true mixed mode entry point into .compat section Ard Biesheuvel 2020-02-13 16:59 ` Arvind Sankar 2020-02-13 17:13 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2020-02-13 14:59 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] efi/x86: implement mixed mode boot without the handover protocol Ard Biesheuvel 2020-02-13 17:23 ` Arvind Sankar 2020-02-13 17:42 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2020-02-13 17:53 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] efi/x86: add support for generic EFI mixed mode boot Arvind Sankar 2020-02-13 17:55 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2020-02-13 18:47 ` Arvind Sankar 2020-02-13 22:36 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2020-02-14 0:10 ` Arvind Sankar [this message] 2020-02-14 0:12 ` Arvind Sankar 2020-02-14 0:21 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2020-02-14 0:38 ` Arvind Sankar
Reply instructions: You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20200214001048.GA3054227@rani.riverdale.lan \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Linux-EFI Archive on lore.kernel.org Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-efi/0 linux-efi/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 linux-efi linux-efi/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-efi \ firstname.lastname@example.org public-inbox-index linux-efi Example config snippet for mirrors Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-efi AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git