2-devel-01 ; Ladi Prosek
> ; Ard Biesheuvel
> Subject: Re: [edk2] multiple levels of support for MOR / MORLock
>
> On 10/01/17 05:56, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
>> Good test! Thanks for the investigation.
>>
>> That is a little annoying.
>
> Agreed!
>
> In a virtu
dk2-devel-01 ; Ladi Prosek ;
Ard Biesheuvel
Subject: Re: [edk2] multiple levels of support for MOR / MORLock
On 10/01/17 05:56, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Good test! Thanks for the investigation.
>
> That is a little annoying.
Agreed!
In a virtualization-only scenario, I wouldn't care
sizeof(val), val);
>>> }
>>
>> This variant does not check if the MOR variable exists.
>>
>> If the variable doesn't exist, then this function will create it
>> (incorrectly). At the next boot, the SmmEndOfDxe callback in
>> &qu
lback in
> "TcgMorLockSmm.c" will think that the firmware platform includes support
> for the MOR variable (it assumes that TcgMor.inf is part of the firmware
> and that TcgMor.inf created the variable), and then the callback
> creates/sets MorLock as well.
>
> Again,
Fedora 26:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jwboyer/fedora.git/commit/?id=65673e37e61d
- Fedora 25:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jwboyer/fedora.git/commit/?id=1f4e5e657685
- Fedora 24:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jwboyer/fedora
Thanks!
Laszlo
> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Laszlo
> Ersek
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 7:06 PM
> To: Yao, Jiewen mailto:jiewen....@intel.com>>
> Cc: edk2-devel-01 mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>>
> Subject: Re: [edk
ilto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Laszlo
> Ersek
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 7:06 PM
> To: Yao, Jiewen
> Cc: edk2-devel-01
> Subject: Re: [edk2] multiple levels of support for MOR / MORLock
>
> On 09/29/17 03:52, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
>> Thanks Lasz
devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Laszlo
Ersek
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 7:06 PM
To: Yao, Jiewen
Cc: edk2-devel-01
Subject: Re: [edk2] multiple levels of support for MOR / MORLock
On 09/29/17 03:52, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Thanks Laszlo.
>
> Yes, I agree it
On 09/29/17 03:52, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Thanks Laszlo.
>
> Yes, I agree it is bug. Would you please help to file a bugzilar in EDKII?
>
> For the fix, I think we have a way to resolve it without PCD. (I do not want
> to bother a platform developer to set a new PCD.)
>
> The only invalid case we
Thanks Laszlo.
Yes, I agree it is bug. Would you please help to file a bugzilar in EDKII?
For the fix, I think we have a way to resolve it without PCD. (I do not want to
bother a platform developer to set a new PCD.)
The only invalid case we need handle is: MOR is absent, but MORL is present.
Hi Jiewen,
my colleague Ladi (CC'd) reported an issue about MORLock in OVMF (and
also analyzed it in great depth):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496170
Here's my understanding of the "MemoryOverwriteRequestControl" and
"MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock" variables:
(1) The "Mem
11 matches
Mail list logo