Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On 29 September 2015 at 23:58, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/28/15 08:41, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 08:16:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> So the question is, what does Windows do?
>>
>> It's pretty trivial to hack OVMF to dump the SetVirtualAddressMap()
>> arguments to the qemu debug port. Unfortunately I'm about to drop
>> mostly  offline for a week, otherwise I'd give it a go...
[...]
> Then I booted my Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows 8.1, and Windows 10
> guests, with the properties table feature enabled vs. disabled in the
> firmware. (All three Windows guests were updated first though.)
>
> All three Windows OSes adapt their SetVirtualAddressMap() calls, when
> the feature is enabled in the firmware. However, Windows 8.1 crashes
> nonetheless (BSOD, I forget the fault details, sorry). Windows Server
> 2012 R2 and Windows 10 boot fine.
>

Looking at the log, it seems the VA mapping strategy is actually the
same (i.e., bottom-up for Win10), and the difference can be explained
by the differences in the memory map provided by the firmware to the
OS. And indeed, the Win8.1 log shows the following:

 # MemType Phys 0x  Virt 0x  Size 0x Attributes
-- ------- -------- -------- ------- -------------------------------
 0 RtData  7EC21000 FFBFA000 0006000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
 1 RtCode  7EC27000 FFBF3000 0007000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |  |RO|  |  |RT]
 2 RtData  7EC2E000 FFBEC000 0007000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
 3 RtData  7EC35000 FFBEB000 0001000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
 4 RtCode  7EC36000 FFBE6000 0005000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |  |RO|  |  |RT]
 5 RtData  7EC3B000 FFBE4000 0002000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
 6 RtData  7EC60000 FFBDE000 0006000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
 7 RtCode  7EC66000 FFBD5000 0009000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |  |RO|  |  |RT]
 8 RtData  7EC6F000 FFBD3000 0002000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
 9 RtData  7EC9E000 FFAFA000 00D9000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
10 RtCode  7ED77000 FFA63000 0097000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |  |RO|  |  |RT]
11 RtData  7EE0E000 FFA58000 000B000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
12 RtData  7FE99000 FFA52000 0006000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
13 RtCode  7FE9F000 FFA4C000 0006000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |  |RO|  |  |RT]
14 RtData  7FEA5000 FFA49000 0003000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
15 RtCode  7FEA8000 FFA42000 0007000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |  |RO|  |  |RT]
16 RtData  7FEAF000 FFA3F000 0003000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
17 RtCode  7FEB2000 FFA36000 0009000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |  |RO|  |  |RT]
18 RtData  7FEBB000 FFA33000 0003000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
19 RtCode  7FEBE000 FFA2A000 0009000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |  |RO|  |  |RT]
20 RtData  7FEC7000 FFA04000 0026000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
21 RtData  7FFD0000 FF9E4000 0020000 [UC|WC|WT|WB|  |XP|  |  |  |RT]
22 RtData  FFE00000 FF7E4000 0200000 [UC|  |  |  |  |XP|  |  |  |RT]

I.e., the physical addresses increase while the virtual addresses
decrease, and since each consecutive RuntimeCode/RuntimeData pair
constitutes a PE/COFF image (.text and .data, respectively), the
PE/COFF images appear corrupted in the virtual space.

> I uploaded the verbose OVMF log files from all six guest boots to [5].
> The tables you might be interested in are dumped at the ends of the log
> files.
>
> All three guests had 2GB of RAM. They had different VM configurations,
> but between disabling and enabling the properties table feature, no
> other knob was tweaked. Therefore the two log files of the same guest
> should be comparable against each other, for each guest. For example:
>
> $ colordiff -u ovmf.win10.prop.{disabled,enabled}.log
>
> Because stuff hosted on the web privately tends to go away, I'll quote
> that diff here, for posterity:
>
>> --- ovmf.win10.prop.disabled.log      2015-09-29 22:01:45.252126086 +0200
>> +++ ovmf.win10.prop.enabled.log       2015-09-29 21:50:54.579475078 +0200
[...]

Thanks a lot for taking the time, this is very useful info.

-- 
Ard.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/