On 01/31/18 06:44, Ni, Ruiyu wrote:
> Mike, Laszlo,
> Does the patch only apply to the operand?
> If so, PatchAssembly looks too general.
> How about the name like PatchAssemblyOperand?

Originally I meant to call the function "PatchInstruction", but then I
thought it could be used for patching any other artifacts too, in object
code that comes from NASM.

I'm also fine calling it PatchAssemblyOperand, or even
PatchInstructionTrailingOperand :)

Thanks
Laszlo


> On 1/31/2018 6:25 AM, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
>> Laszlo,
>>
>> I agree that the function is better than a macro.
>>
>> I thought of the alignment issues as well.  CopyMem()
>> is a good solution.  We could also consider
>> WriteUnalignedxx() functions in BaseLib.
>>
>> I was originally thinking this functionality would go
>> into BaseLib.  But with the use of CopyMem(), we can't
>> do that.  Maybe we should use WriteUnalignedxx() and
>> add some ASSERT() checks.
>>
>> VOID
>> PatchAssembly (
>>    VOID    *BufferEnd,
>>    UINT64  PatchValue,
>>    UINTN   ValueSize
>>    )
>> {
>>    ASSERT ((UINTN)BufferEnd > ValueSize);
>>    switch (ValueSize) {
>>    case 1:
>>      ASSERT (PatchValue <= MAX_UINT8);
>>      *((UINT8 *)BufferEnd - 1) = (UINT8)PatchValue;
>>    case 2:
>>      ASSERT (PatchValue <= MAX_UINT16);
>>      WriteUnaligned16 ((UINT16 *)(BufferEnd) - 1, (UINT16)PatchValue));
>>      break;
>>    case 4:
>>      ASSERT (PatchValue <= MAX_UINT32);
>>      WriteUnaligned32 ((UINT32 *)(BufferEnd) - 1, (UINT32)PatchValue));
>>      break;
>>    case 8:
>>      WriteUnaligned64 ((UINT64 *)(BufferEnd) - 1, PatchValue));
>>      break;
>>    default:
>>      ASSERT (FALSE);
>>    }
>> }
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:45 PM
>>> To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; edk2-
>>> devel-01 <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
>>> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com>; Paolo Bonzini
>>> <pbonz...@redhat.com>; Yao, Jiewen
>>> <jiewen....@intel.com>; Dong, Eric <eric.d...@intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/3]
>>> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: update comments in IA32
>>> SmmStartup()
>>>
>>> On 01/30/18 21:31, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
>>>> Laszlo,
>>>>
>>>> We have already used this technique in other NASM files
>>>> to remove DBs.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>> Let us know if you have suggestions on how to make the
>>>> C code that performs the patches easier to read and
>>>> maintain.
>>>
>>> How about this:
>>>
>>>    VOID
>>>    PatchAssembly (
>>>      VOID   *BufferEnd,
>>>      UINT64 PatchValue,
>>>      UINTN  ValueSize
>>>      )
>>>    {
>>>      CopyMem (
>>>        (VOID *)((UINTN)BufferEnd - ValueSize),
>>>        &PatchValue,
>>>        ValueSize
>>>        );
>>>    }
>>>
>>>    extern UINT8 gAsmSmmCr0;
>>>    extern UINT8 gAsmSmmCr3;
>>>    extern UINT8 gAsmSmmCr4;
>>>
>>>    ...
>>>    {
>>>      PatchAssembly (&gAsmSmmCr0, AsmReadCr0 (), 4);
>>>      PatchAssembly (&gAsmSmmCr3, AsmReadCr3 (), 4);
>>>      PatchAssembly (&gAsmSmmCr4, AsmReadCr4 (), 4);
>>>      ...
>>>    }
>>>
>>> (I think it's fine to open-code the last argument as "4",
>>> rather than
>>> "sizeof (UINT32)", because for patching, we must have
>>> intimate knowledge
>>> of the instruction anyway.)
>>>
>>> To me, this is easier to read, because:
>>>
>>> - there are no complex casts in the "business logic"
>>> - the size is spelled out once per patching
>>> - the function name and the variable names make it clear
>>> we are patching
>>>    separately compiled assembly code that was linked into
>>> the same
>>>    module.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Laszlo
>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-
>>> boun...@lists.01.org]
>>>>> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 10:17 AM
>>>>> To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>;
>>> edk2-
>>>>> devel-01 <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
>>>>> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com>; Paolo Bonzini
>>>>> <pbonz...@redhat.com>; Yao, Jiewen
>>>>> <jiewen....@intel.com>; Dong, Eric
>>> <eric.d...@intel.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/3]
>>>>> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: update comments in IA32
>>>>> SmmStartup()
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/30/18 18:22, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
>>>>>> Laszlo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DBs can be removed if the label is moved after
>>>>>> the instruction and the patch is done to the label
>>>>>> minus the size of the patch value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed I haven't thought of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I understand correctly, it means
>>>>>
>>>>>    extern UINT8 gSmmCr0;
>>>>>
>>>>>    *(UINT32*)(&gSmmCr0 - sizeof (UINT32)) =
>>>>> (UINT32)AsmReadCr0 ();
>>>>>
>>>>> TBH, the DB feels less ugly to me than this :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, if you think it would be an acceptable price to
>>>>> pay for removing
>>>>> the remaining DBs, I can respin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Laszlo
>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-
>>>>> boun...@lists.01.org]
>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 7:34 AM
>>>>>>> To: edk2-devel-01 <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com>; Yao, Jiewen
>>>>>>> <jiewen....@intel.com>; Dong, Eric
>>>>> <eric.d...@intel.com>;
>>>>>>> Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: [edk2] [PATCH 1/3]
>>> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm:
>>>>>>> update comments in IA32 SmmStartup()
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The gSmmCr3, gSmmCr4, gSmmCr0 and gSmmJmpAddr global
>>>>>>> variables  are used
>>>>>>> for patching assembly instructions, thus we can
>>> never
>>>>>>> remove the DB
>>>>>>> encodings for those instructions. At least we should
>>>>> add
>>>>>>> the intended
>>>>>>> meanings in comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch only changes comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.d...@intel.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.w...@intel.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen....@intel.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu...@intel.com>
>>>>>>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement
>>>>> 1.1
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>   UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/Ia32/SmmInit.nasm | 8
>>> ++++-
>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git
>>>>> a/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/Ia32/SmmInit.nasm
>>>>>>> b/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/Ia32/SmmInit.nasm
>>>>>>> index e96dd8d2392a..08534dba64b7 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/Ia32/SmmInit.nasm
>>>>>>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/Ia32/SmmInit.nasm
>>>>>>> @@ -44,34 +44,34 @@ global ASM_PFX(SmmStartup)
>>>>>>>   ASM_PFX(SmmStartup):
>>>>>>>       DB      0x66
>>>>>>>       mov     eax, 0x80000001             ; read
>>>>>>> capability
>>>>>>>       cpuid
>>>>>>>       DB      0x66
>>>>>>>       mov     ebx, edx                    ; rdmsr
>>> will
>>>>>>> change edx. keep it in ebx.
>>>>>>> -    DB      0x66, 0xb8
>>>>>>> +    DB      0x66, 0xb8                  ; mov eax,
>>>>> imm32
>>>>>>>   ASM_PFX(gSmmCr3): DD 0
>>>>>>>       mov     cr3, eax
>>>>>>>       DB      0x67, 0x66
>>>>>>>       lgdt    [cs:ebp + (ASM_PFX(gcSmiInitGdtr) -
>>>>>>> ASM_PFX(SmmStartup))]
>>>>>>> -    DB      0x66, 0xb8
>>>>>>> +    DB      0x66, 0xb8                  ; mov eax,
>>>>> imm32
>>>>>>>   ASM_PFX(gSmmCr4): DD 0
>>>>>>>       mov     cr4, eax
>>>>>>>       DB      0x66
>>>>>>>       mov     ecx, 0xc0000080             ; IA32_EFER
>>>>> MSR
>>>>>>>       rdmsr
>>>>>>>       DB      0x66
>>>>>>>       test    ebx, BIT20                  ; check NXE
>>>>>>> capability
>>>>>>>       jz      .1
>>>>>>>       or      ah, BIT3                    ; set NXE
>>> bit
>>>>>>>       wrmsr
>>>>>>>   .1:
>>>>>>> -    DB      0x66, 0xb8
>>>>>>> +    DB      0x66, 0xb8                  ; mov eax,
>>>>> imm32
>>>>>>>   ASM_PFX(gSmmCr0): DD 0
>>>>>>>       DB      0xbf, PROTECT_MODE_DS, 0    ; mov di,
>>>>>>> PROTECT_MODE_DS
>>>>>>>       mov     cr0, eax
>>>>>>> -    DB      0x66, 0xea                   ; jmp far
>>>>>>> [ptr48]
>>>>>>> +    DB      0x66, 0xea                  ; jmp far
>>>>>>> [ptr48]
>>>>>>>   ASM_PFX(gSmmJmpAddr):
>>>>>>>       DD      @32bit
>>>>>>>       DW      PROTECT_MODE_CS
>>>>>>>   @32bit:
>>>>>>>       mov     ds, edi
>>>>>>>       mov     es, edi
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> 2.14.1.3.gb7cf6e02401b
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> edk2-devel mailing list
>>>>>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> edk2-devel mailing list
>>>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>>
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Reply via email to