> -----Original Message----- > From: Heinrich Schuchardt [mailto:xypron.g...@gmx.de] > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 8:43 PM > To: Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> > Cc: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) <abner.ch...@hpe.com>; > boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; Atish Patra <ati...@atishpatra.org>; Rick > Chen <r...@andestech.com>; Atish Patra <atish.pa...@wdc.com>; Grant > Likely <grant.lik...@arm.com> > Subject: Re: EBBR: RISC-V handoff to OS > > On 24.09.20 14:05, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 08:07, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> > wrote: > >> > >> On 9/24/20 5:35 AM, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote: > >>> Ok Heinrich, thanks for the clarification. I also read through this thread > again and understand the intention you would like to have some sentences > in the UEFI spec. > >>> > >>> I realize that we are trying to put sentences in the RISC-V calling > convention in UEFI spec to support the specific UEFI firmware > implementation of using gp/tp. > >>> Uboot UEFI firmware uses tp in HART to record the HART ID and uses gp > in the boot-HART to maintain the global data structure of uboot. > >> > >> tp is only used to store information on the secondary harts which > >> does not enter the UEFI payload. So for U-Boot the only problematic > >> register is gp. If you are using opensbi solution, you should consider to use firmware context mechanism because that is designed for any firmware solutions to maintain its own data structure for any purposes.
> >> > > > > Secondary CPUs could be used to invoke runtime services, though. > > > >>> The reason I can think of the reason to use tp/gp is because S-Mode > UEFI firmware (or S-mode payload?) is not able to get mhartid, so uboot > stores HART ID in tp. Because there is nowhere to maintain the global data > structure for uboot and the mscratch is occupied by opensbi, thus uboot uses > gp to maintain the pointer to global context. > >>> Because both tp and gp are non-privileged registers so uboot (or > >>> payload?) can get the information from those registers easily, > >>> right? (But is this a security hole that any software can hack > >>> tp/gp? However, this is the different topic, just ignore this) > >> > >> As said U-Boot restores value of gp when entered from UEFI via the API. > >> > >> We should do the same when serving interrupts and exceptions. > >> > > > > When? > > > > We should carefully consider the difference between before-EBS and > > after-EBS here: > > > > Before EBS: > > Interrupt/exception handlers are owned by the UEFI firmware (Uboot or > > EDK2). The OS or any other EFI payload must not interfere with this, > > and only use function call interfaces to interact with the system. > > There is a gap in U-Boot for interrupts/exceptions before > ExitBootServices() that I will have to close. > > Best regards > > Heinrich > > > > > After EBS: > > Interrupt/exception handlers are owned by the OS. The UEFI firmware > > can be entered on any CPU with interrupts enabled or disabled, and the > > UEFI firmware should not interfere with interrupt handling or > > exception vectors etc. > > > > > > > >> Concerning security we have to remember that an UEFI payload has the > >> same powers as the firmware itself. When it comes to hacking you have > >> lost once you execute a hostile payload. What we can try to guard > >> against to some degree are non-compliant payloads. > >> > > > > Agreed. Everything runs at the same permission level, so any software > > running under UEFI has the same powers as the UEFI firmware itself. > > > >>> Did we spec out above behavior in uboot RISC-V spec or the > implementation design guide at somewhere? I am not quite familiar with > uboot area though. > >> > >> The patch series > >> > >> doc: global data pointer > >> INVALID URI REMOVED > 3A__patchwork.ozlabs > >> .org_project_uboot_list_-3Fseries- > 3D202971&d=DwIFaQ&c=C5b8zRQO1miGmBe > >> > VZ2LFWg&r=_SN6FZBN4Vgi4Ulkskz6qU3NYRO03nHp9P7Z5q59A3E&m=QMu > q0JhboDWbE > >> qbx6d4dZeXY2Pk0-PICJzRJKNT4wRY&s=UjTczoF1vjt5- > uUzkvB6QFgGIsCUpuTMrSjX > >> Zh8LbGA&e= > >> > >> starts closing the documentation gap in U-Boot. > >> > >>> > >>> Another problem comes to my mind is even though we save gp/tp upon > the entry of ExitBootService (or other UEFI APIs) and replaced with the > uboot ones, what if the interrupt/exception happens and delegated to the > payload event handler during ExitBootService (or other UEFI APIs)? The > ownership is messed up at this point, right? > >> > >> UEFI spec 2.8B chapter 2.3.7 "RISC-V Platforms" has: > >> > >> The processor is in the following execution mode during boot service: > >> The machine mode interrupt is enabled during boot service in UEFI. > >> Two kinds of interrupts are enabled, one is for timer interrupt and > >> another is software interrupt > >> > >> All other architectures except RISC-V describe the usage of runtime > >> services by the OS with the following sentences: > >> > >> For an operating system to use any runtime services, it must: Call > >> the runtime service functions, with the following conditions: > >> Interrupts may be disabled or enabled at the discretion of the caller. > >> > >> So the rule of thumb is: Until ExitBootServices() returns the > >> firmware serves interrupts and exceptions. After ExitBootServices() > >> returns it is the operating system. > >> > >> In the AAarch64 chapter I found: > >> > >> "An alternate execution environment can restore the firmware > >> environment before each UEFI call. However the possibility of > >> preemption may require the alternate execution-enabled application to > >> disable interrupts while the alternate execution environment is > >> active. It's legal for the alternate execution environment enabled > >> application to enable interrupts if the application catches the > >> interrupt and restores the EFI firmware environment prior to calling the > UEFI interrupt ISR." > >> > >> I am not aware of an implementation of such an "alternate execution > >> environment". But an alternative execution environment serving > >> interrupts while calling the UEFI API and relying on values that it > >> has put into gp would not work on current U-Boot. > >> > >>> > >>> In edk2 RISC-V port, we use "firmware_context" in sbi_platforms which > provided opensbi through mscratch to maintain the firmware specific context. > With this, firmware can maintain its own data structure without bothering > any other industrial specs. Because S-Mode firmware can't access to mhartid > and the sbi-scratch which is stored in mscratch, so we have Edk2OpensbiLib > that registers the firmware specific sbi extension functions using "Firmware > Code Base Specific SBI Extension Space, Extension Ids 0x0A000000 through > 0x0AFFFFFF" defined in sbi spec. That is a separate spec for RISC-V edk2 > firmware sbi extension function (This reminds me I forget to document it). > Then edk2 can get the necessary information using edk2 extension sbi call. > >>> > >> > >> Thank you for pointing me at Edk2OpensbiLib. Where can I find the code? Here it is, https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/tree/master/Silicon/RISC-V/ProcessorPkg/Library/RiscVEdk2SbiLib > >> > >> I will have to keep in mind that U-Boot can be used both with and > >> without an SEE. > >> > >>> You would agree with that we don’t have to mention the gp/tp usage in > the calling convention just because of the uboot implementation. And we > don’t have mention any connection/relationship between gp/tp usage and > the specific UEFI firmware implementation. The sentence must be also > generic to other UEFI firmware solutions such as edk2 which doesn't care > about destroying gp/tp (so far). > >> > >> I fully agree that specifications precede implementations. > >> > >>> > >>> In the RISC-V assembly programmer's handbook in RISC-V spec, gp/tp > are not given either the caller or callee to save the value, so we can spec > out > something in UEFI spec based on this calling convention. > >> > >> Jessica Clarke pointed me to the "RISC-V ELF psABI specification" > >> (https://github.com/riscv/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/blob/master/riscv-elf.m > >> d) which defines the usage of tp and gp in the RISC-V world: > >> > >> "In the standard ABI, procedures should not modify the integer > >> registers tp and gp, because signal handlers may rely upon their values." > >> > >> So here the idea is that whoever serves interrupts and exceptions is > >> the owner of gp and tp. > >> > >> After ExitBootServices() signals are served by the operating system. > >> It takes hold of the values of tp and gp. See these lines of the Linux > >> kernel: > >> > >> arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S:97: > >> la gp, __global_pointer$ > >> > >> arch/riscv/kernel/head.S:253: > >> la tp, init_task > >> > >> Every time Linux enters kernel mode it again sets its own values of > >> gp and tp. This addresses the security problem that you mentioned above. > >> > >>> > >>> The sentence which I consider reasonable is , "In view of gp and tp > >>> registers are not assigned the specific owner to save and restore their > values in the calling convention (refer to "RISC-V assembly programmer's > handbook" section in RISC-V Unprivileged ISA specification), UEFI firmware > must not having assumption of owning the write access to these register at > any circumstances such as in EFI Boot service, EFI Runtime service, EFI > Management Mode service and in any UEFI firmware interfaces which may > invoked by the external firmware payload, or altering the values of gp/tp > registers results in the interference in the asynchronous callback to the > external firmware payload . Whether and how to preserve gp and tp during > UEFI firmware environment is UEFI firmware implementation-specific. RISC- > V platform firmware integrator should refer to the corresponding design > specification of the particular UEFI firmware solution." > >>> > >> > >> We should start with a reference of the "RISC-V ELF psABI specification" > >> to explain the usage of gp and tp. > >> > >> It seems to be necessary and sufficient for the firmware to follow: > >> > >> * Don't trust the values of tp and gp when entered > >> from the payloads world. > >> * If you need to change them, restore the values before returning. > >> * Never touch tp and gp after ExitBootServices(). > >> > >> The same should be observed by an interrupt or exception handler > >> provided by an "alternative execution environment". > >> > >> Best regards How about this, In view of the statement "In the standard ABI, procedures should not modify the integer registers tp and gp, because signal handlers may rely upon their values." mentioned in RISC-V EFL psABI Specification (See “Link to UEFI Specification-Related Document” on https://uefi.org/uefi under the heading “RISC-V EFL psABI Specification”) and the RISC-V calling convention that gp and tp registers are not assigned the specific owner to save and restore their values (refer to "RISC-V assembly programmer's handbook" section in RISC-V Unprivileged ISA specification). UEFI firmware must neither trusting the values of tp and gp nor having assumption of owning the write access to these register at any circumstances (Such as in EFI Boot service, EFI Runtime service, EFI Management Mode service and any UEFI firmware interfaces which may invoked by the EFI drivers, OS or external firmware payload). Preserve the values in gp or tp register if UEFI firmware needs to change them and never touches them after ExitBootServices(). Whether and how to preserve gp and tp during UEFI firmware environment is UEFI firmware implementation-specific. > >> > >> Heinrich > >> > >>> I believe this initial sentence still needs some revises, please just > >>> modify > above paragraph if you don't like it. We can keep discussing this based on > above paragraph. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Heinrich Schuchardt [mailto:xypron.g...@gmx.de] > >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 2:20 AM > >>>> To: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) <abner.ch...@hpe.com>; > >>>> boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; Atish Patra > >>>> <ati...@atishpatra.org> > >>>> Cc: Rick Chen <r...@andestech.com>; Atish Patra > >>>> <atish.pa...@wdc.com>; Grant Likely <grant.lik...@arm.com>; Ard > >>>> Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> > >>>> Subject: Re: EBBR: RISC-V handoff to OS > >>>> > >>>> On 9/23/20 5:01 PM, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:55 PM > >>>>>> To: 'Heinrich Schuchardt' <xypron.g...@gmx.de>; boot- > >>>>>> architect...@lists.linaro.org; Atish Patra > >>>>>> <ati...@atishpatra.org> > >>>>>> Cc: Rick Chen <r...@andestech.com>; Atish Patra > >>>>>> <atish.pa...@wdc.com>; Grant Likely <grant.lik...@arm.com>; Ard > >>>>>> Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> > >>>>>> Subject: RE: EBBR: RISC-V handoff to OS > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: Heinrich Schuchardt [mailto:xypron.g...@gmx.de] > >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 3:42 PM > >>>>>>> To: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) > <abner.ch...@hpe.com>; > >>>>>>> boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; Atish Patra > >>>>>>> <ati...@atishpatra.org> > >>>>>>> Cc: Rick Chen <r...@andestech.com>; Atish Patra > >>>>>>> <atish.pa...@wdc.com>; Grant Likely <grant.lik...@arm.com>; Ard > >>>>>>> Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: EBBR: RISC-V handoff to OS > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 23.09.20 08:51, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: Heinrich Schuchardt [mailto:xypron.g...@gmx.de] > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 2:18 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) > >>>> <abner.ch...@hpe.com>; > >>>>>>>>> boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; Atish Patra > >>>>>>>>> <ati...@atishpatra.org> > >>>>>>>>> Cc: Rick Chen <r...@andestech.com>; Atish Patra > >>>>>>>>> <atish.pa...@wdc.com>; Grant Likely <grant.lik...@arm.com>; > >>>>>>>>> Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: EBBR: RISC-V handoff to OS > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 9/23/20 7:24 AM, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>> From: Heinrich Schuchardt [mailto:xypron.g...@gmx.de] > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5:30 PM > >>>>>>>>>>> To: boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; Chang, Abner (HPS > >>>>>>>>>>> SW/FW > >>>>>>>>>>> Technologist) <abner.ch...@hpe.com>; Atish Patra > >>>>>>>>>>> <ati...@atishpatra.org> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; Rick Chen > >>>>>>>>>>> <r...@andestech.com>; Atish Patra <atish.pa...@wdc.com>; > >>>>>>>>>>> Grant Likely <grant.lik...@arm.com>; Ard Biesheuvel > >>>>>>>>>>> <a...@kernel.org> > >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: EBBR: RISC-V handoff to OS > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Am 22. September 2020 08:30:57 MESZ schrieb "Chang, Abner > >>>>>>>>>>> (HPS > >>>>>>>>> SW/FW > >>>>>>>>>>> Technologist)" <abner.ch...@hpe.com>: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Atish Patra [mailto:ati...@atishpatra.org] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:08 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) > >>>>>>> <abner.ch...@hpe.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de>; Atish > Patra > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <atish.pa...@wdc.com>; boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Grant > >>>>>>>>>>>> Likely > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <grant.lik...@arm.com>; Ard Biesheuvel > <a...@kernel.org>; > >>>> Rick > >>>>>>>>> Chen > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <r...@andestech.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: EBBR: RISC-V handoff to OS > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 6:11 PM Chang, Abner (HPS > SW/FW > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Technologist) <abner.ch...@hpe.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Atish Patra [mailto:ati...@atishpatra.org] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:28 AM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Atish Patra <atish.pa...@wdc.com>; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grant Likely <grant.lik...@arm.com>; Ard Biesheuvel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <a...@kernel.org>; Rick Chen <r...@andestech.com>; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chang, > >>>>>>>>> Abner > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (HPS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SW/FW Technologist) <abner.ch...@hpe.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: EBBR: RISC-V handoff to OS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 9:23 AM Heinrich Schuchardt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Atish, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the UEFI spec has this sentence: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "When UEFI firmware handoff control to OS, the RISC-V > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>> operated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in machine-mode privilege." (M-mode is the equivalent > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EL3 in > >>>>>>>>>>>> ARM). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is a pretty old section in UEFI spec even > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> before OpenSBI > >>>>>>>>>>>> as I can > >>>>>>>>>>>>> remember and haven't been updated to sync with latest > >>>>>>>>>>>>> status RISC-V > >>>>>>>>>>>> works. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This does not make any sense to me when using a > secure > >>>>>>>>>>>> execution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environement (SEE) like OpenSBI. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The hand-off should occur in S-Mode if the CPU > supports > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and only in M-Mode when the CPU only supports M- > mode. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +Abner > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Abner has already submitted an ECR for this & few > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>> RISC-V > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related changes to UEFI spec. I am not sure about the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current > >>>>>>>>>>>> status > >>>>>>>>>>>>> though. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Abner: Do you know the latest status ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the ECR was submitted to USWG for review, however > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> meeting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> canceled often recently and the process goes slow. I will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep following up > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you also attach the latest ECR here for a broader > >>>> review. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I may not allowed to public ECR here unless all people in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> mailing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list are the members of UEFI org… but the sentence we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> revised in > >>>>>>>>>>>> ECR > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is as below, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "When UEFI firmware handoff control to Supervisor mode > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OS, RISC-V > >>>>>>>>>>>> boot > >>>>>>>>>>>>> hart must be operated in Supervisor mode, and the > memory > >>>>>>>>> addressing > >>>>>>>>>>>>> must be operated in Bare mode which is no memory > address > >>>>>>>>>>>>> translation > >>>>>>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>>> protection through the virtual page table entry." > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We didn’t mention hand-off to M-Mode if CPU only > support > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> M- > >>>>>>> Mode > >>>>>>>>>>>>> because we only verified edk2 RISC-V port in S-Mode with > >>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSBI, but didn’t try it on M-Mode even though the > code > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>> ready there. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's correct. We can't run UEFI applications run time > >>>>>>>>>>>>> services in > >>>>>>>>>>>> M-mode as > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it requires virtual memory in current setup. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is better to keep that way there is a specific > >>>>>>>>>>>>> demand and > >>>>>>>>>>>> value in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> running UEFI applications in M-mode. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should prescribe this in the EBBR and somehow get > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the UEFI > >>>>>>>>>>>> spec > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed afterwards. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will add it to the RISC-V EBBR PR (haven't sent it yet). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An other issue is the calling convention. Chapter > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "2.3.7.3 Detailed Calling Convention" does not describe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which registers > >>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saved by the UEFI payload's entry point and restored > by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the payload before calling the UEFI API or returning to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the UEFI payload. This concerns especially registers gp > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (x3) and tp > >>>>>>>>>>>> (x4). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Into the EBBR or UEFI spec we should put a link to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "RISC-V > >>>>>>>>>>>> ELF > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psABI specification" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/blob/master/ri > >>>>>>>>>>>> scv- > >>>>>>>>>>>> e > >>>>>>>>>>>> lf > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .md which is referenced by "The RISC-V Instruction Set > >>>>>> Manual". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the "RISC-V ELF psABI specification" one might > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclude > >>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the UEFI payload should not be allowed to change gp > and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tp > >>>>>>>>>>>> before > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ExitBootServices() or SetVirtualAddressMap() > whichever > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurs > >>>>>>>>>>>> last. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. Thanks for pointing this out. I think this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should go into the UEFI spec instead of EBBR spec. Any > suggestions ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To have this external link is good, I will add this link in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ECR. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again :). As per Heinrich's suggestion, it would > >>>>>>>>>>>>> also be good > >>>>>>>>>>>> to add > >>>>>>>>>>>>> some text about the state of gp & tp. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ok. I add some text, copied from psABI spec. :) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "........ Registers tp and gp should not be modified in the > >>>>>>>>>>>> function, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I would not know what "in the function" refers to here. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> We have a value of tp and gp passed from the firmware to the > >>>>>>>>>>> entry-point of the firmware. We need a definition describing > >>>>>>>>>>> what assumptions the firmware may or may not make about > the > >>>>>>>>>>> value of tp and gp up to ExitBootServices and in > >>>>>>>>>>> SetVirtualAddressMap. I would not assume gp and tp to have > >>>>>>>>>>> any firmware related value > >>>>>> afterwards. > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, I got your point. But do we mention "value of tp and gp > >>>>>>>>>> passed from > >>>>>>>>> the firmware to the entry-point of the firmware" somewhere in > >>>>>>>>> the particular spec? What is the spec of values you pass in > >>>>>>>>> tp/gp to the entry point of firmware? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> It would be perfectly ok if the spec said that the firmware > >>>>>>>>>>> should make no assumptions about the value of these > >>>>>>>>>>> registers > >>>>>>>>>> I don’t think firmware has assumption of value in these > >>>>>>>>>> registers because the calling convention doesn't use these > >>>>>>>>>> two regs. Maybe the assembly code use these two regs for > some > >>>>>>>>>> purpose but firmware has to preserve it. The revised version > >>>>>>>>>> in below, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> but has to keep the values > >>>>>>>>>>> intact during an API call. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The important thing is that we have a clear definition of > >>>>>>>>>>> the interface between the firmware and the payload. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> How about this, > >>>>>>>>>> "Registers tp and gp are unallocatable and not preserved > >>>>>>>>>> across the > >>>>>>>>> function calls, UEFI firmware implementation of RISC-V > >>>>>>>>> platform should keep the values in these two registers intact > >>>>>>>>> during entire UEFI firmware boot process, UEFI boot service and > runtime service. > >>>>>>>>> See “Link to UEFI Specification-Related Document” on > >>>>>>>>> https://uefi.org/uefi under the heading “RISC-V EFL psABI > >>>>>>>>> Specification” for the more descriptions of RISC-V calling > convention." > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Current situation in U-Boot > >>>>>>>>> =========================== > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> With U-Boot we currently have the following boot flows: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> U-Boot -> payload > >>>>>>>>> OpenSBI -> payload > >>>>>>>>> U-Boot SPL -> OpenSBI -> U-Boot -> payload > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Upon entry U-Boot overwrites tp with the HART id on all HARTs > >>>>>>>>> and the boot HART's gp with a pointer to U-Boot's global data > structure. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> At boot time when the payload makes an API call U-Boot > >>>>>>>>> replaces the payload's gp by its own value upon entry and > >>>>>>>>> restores the payload's gp before returning to the payload. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> At runtime UBoot neither touches gp nor tp. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Interrupt handling > >>>>>>>>> ================== > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Before ExitBootServices() handling of interrupts and > >>>>>>>>> exceptions is the task of the firmware. As both may rely on > >>>>>>>>> the values of tp and gp the payload should not overwrite them. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> When the operating system takes over it also has gets the > >>>>>>>>> responsibility for handling interrupts and exceptions and will > >>>>>>>>> set its own > >>>>>>> values of tp and gp. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Some operating systems call SetVirtualAddressMap() after > >>>>>>>>> ExitBootServices(), others don't. On Linux this is controlled > >>>>>>>>> by kernel command line parameter efi=novamap. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Conclusion > >>>>>>>>> ========== > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I would suggest the following rules: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Until ExitBootServices() returns to the payload the firmware > >>>>>>>>> is the owner of registers gp and tp. The payload MUST NOT > >>>>>>>>> alter these > >>>> values. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This implies that when handling > EVT_SIGNAL_EXIT_BOOT_SERVICES > >>>>>>> events > >>>>>>>>> the payload MUST NOT alter gp and tp. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> After ExitBootServices() the payload is the owner of registers > >>>>>>>>> gp and tp. The firmware MUST NOT alter these values. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The firmware solution you mentioned above is the payload > >>>>>>>> solution with > >>>>>>> either uboot or opensbi. However, edk2 firmware solution is not > >>>>>>> the > >>>> same. > >>>>>>> RISC-V edk2 firmware solution uses OpenSBI as the library. Thus > >>>>>>> we don't have to mention specific firmware solution in UEFI spec. > >>>>>>>> I think the final sentence already covered all use cases you > >>>>>>>> mentioned > >>>>>>> above, that includes the EFI POST time and the UEFI service > >>>>>>> exposed to user such as EFI boot service and EFI runtime > >>>>>>> service. We don’t have to mention specific rule in the spec. I > >>>>>>> revised it again and add EFI Management Mode service. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> My references to U-Boot where not meant for inclusion in any > >>>>>>> spec but as background information only. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "Registers tp and gp are unallocatable and not preserved across > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> function calls, UEFI firmware implementation of RISC-V platform > >>>>>>> should keep the values in these two registers intact during > >>>>>>> entire UEFI firmware boot process, EFI boot services, EFI > >>>>>>> runtime services and EFI management mode services. See “Link to > >>>>>>> UEFI Specification-Related Document” on https://uefi.org/uefi > >>>>>>> under the heading “RISC-V EFL psABI Specification” for the more > >>>>>>> descriptions of > >>>> RISC-V calling convention." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please, have a look at RFC 2119 "Key words for use in RFCs to > >>>>>>> Indicate Requirement Levels" [INVALID URI REMOVED > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc2119&d=DwIFaQ&c=C5b8zRQO1miGmBeVZ2LFW > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > g&r=_SN6FZBN4Vgi4Ulkskz6qU3NYRO03nHp9P7Z5q59A3E&m=M_APpMPr8z > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > v5FK0ys5Noq10akQQqL0eNc9vlZqmOkpw&s=DBCkr05bpuKrQWdyNn5bJSow > >>>>>>> sLV7UDvDJIJc3nT4jd0&e= ]. Here "should" > >>>>>>> has the meaning of "recommended" and may be ignored "in > >>>>>>> particular circumstances". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Did you mean SHOULD or MUST? > >>>>>> MUST is better, to make UEFI firmware solution simple. UEFI edk2 > >>>>>> implementation could be a stand along firmware or to be built as > >>>>>> the payload (we don’t have this implementation yet). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "are unallocatable" is vague. It does not describe who is not > >>>>>>> allowed to change the values. Is it the firmware or is it the payload? > >>>>>> From UEFI perspective, UEFI firmware payload is not allowed to > >>>>>> change the value. I will rephrase this sentence. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "keep the values intact" is vague. It could mean that the > >>>>>>> firmware SHOULD reset gp and tp to the values they had had > >>>>>>> before > >>>>>>> StartImage() whenever an API call is made. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We need a definition that cannot be misunderstood. In my > >>>>>>> definition it is at least clear who is the owner of tp and gp. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please, consider that before ExitBootServices() many different > >>>>>>> payloads may be loaded by the firmware: applications, boot > >>>>>>> service drivers, runtime service drivers. This is why to me it > >>>>>>> does not make sense to allow any other software but the firmware > >>>>>>> to define the values of > >>>>>> tp and gp before ExitBootServices(). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am not against that firmware to define the values of tp and > >>>>>> gp. I think the "firmware" you mentioned here refer to uboot but > >>>>>> not edk2 > >>>> firmware. > >>>> > >>>> I refer to the firmware providing the UEFI API. U-Boot and EDK II > >>>> are alternative implementations. > >>>> > >>>>>> I am also fine to mention UEFI firmware should not (Must not) use > >>>>>> gp and tp in spec. I would like to restrict using these two > >>>>>> registers in UEFI firmware no matter the RISC-V UEFI firmware > >>>>>> implementation is a stand along system firmware or a payload for > >>>>>> other firmware such as uboot/opensbi, this would be easier for us > >>>>>> to maintain RISC-V edk2 port. Hope I don’t misunderstand > >>>> > >>>> Both U-Boot and EDK II may be started by an SEE, e.g. OpenSBI. > >>>> > >>>>>> the intention which you brought up here, which is the UEFI > >>>>>> firmware payload must not altering the value of gp and tp, right? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> However, I don’t want to see that we list the specific functions > >>>>>> such as ExitBootServices, startImage, SetVirtualAddress in the > >>>>>> UEFI spec, we can just give the strict criteria to UEFI firmware to not > using gp/tp. > >>>>>> Says UEFI firmware can't alter tp/gp values, > >>>>>> - After firmware enters UEFI firmware payload and before > >>>>>> returning to > >>>>>> firmware>> - In BS > >>>>>> - In RTS > >>>>>> - In SMM service > >>>> > >>>> Everytime U-Boot code is entered during boot services the payloads > >>>> gp is saved. When returning to the payload the payloads value of > >>>> the gp is restored. So the payload cannot observe any change in gp. > >>>> At runtime U- Boot does not touch gp. > >>>> > >>>> I hope that is in line with your suggestion. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards > >>>> > >>>> Heinrich > >>>> > >>>>>> These should cover all possibilities of gp/tp value changed in > >>>>>> UEFI > >>>> firmware. > >>>>>> We don’t even have to define the ownership of these registers in > >>>>>> UEFI > >>>> spec. > >>>>> BTW, above is based on the edk2 UEFI implementation. I am not sure > >>>>> if > >>>> other UEFI firmware implementation can avoid to use these registers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best regards > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Heinrich > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> because signal handlers may rely upon their values. See > >>>>>>>>>>>> “Link to UEFI Specification-Related Document” on > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://uefi.org/uefi under the heading “RISC-V EFL psABI > >>>>>>>>>>>> Specification” for the more descriptions of RISC-V calling > >>>> convention." > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I will upload this update to USWG once Heinrich agrees with > >>>> above. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Due to this missing clarification U-Boot is currently > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saving gp before calling the entry point of the payload > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and restores it > >>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reentry or on entry of an API call. Nothing is done for tp. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
