On 07/08/20 15:07, Tom Lendacky wrote: > On 7/7/20 12:11 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote: >> On 7/7/20 10:50 AM, Tom Lendacky wrote: >>> On 7/7/20 10:36 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>>> On 07/06/20 22:03, Tom Lendacky wrote: >>>>> On 7/2/20 2:04 AM, Dong, Eric wrote: >>>>>> Hi Tom, >>>>> >>>>> Hi Eric, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We have root cause this Mac file format issue. The patch mail from your >>>>>> side include extra two "=0D=0D" , and our test tool convert them to >>>>>> "\r\r". This is Mac file line ending format. So this issue been >>>>>> reported. We have updated our tool to handle this special case. >>>>> >>>>> Good to know, thanks! >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> With that change, now I met below error when use VS2015 tool chain. Can >>>>>> you help to fix it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Building ... >>>>>> g:\edk2-open-source\edk2\MdePkg\Library\PeiCoreEntryPoint\PeiCoreEntryPoint.inf >>>>>> [X64] >>>>>> PeCoffLoaderEx.c >>>>>> g:\edk2-open-source\edk2\OvmfPkg\Library\VmgExitLib\VmgExitVcHandler.c(386): >>>>>> warning C4334: '<<': result of 32-bit shift implicitly converted to 64 >>>>>> bits (was 64-bit shift intended?) >>>>>> NMAKE : fatal error U1077: '"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual >>>>>> Studio 14.0\Vc\bin\x86_amd64\cl.exe"' : return code '0x2' >>>> >>>> This is for the line >>>> >>>> Displacement *= (1 << Ext->Sib.Scale); >>>> >>>> from >>>> >>>> [edk2-devel] [PATCH v9 17/46] >>>> OvmfPkg/VmgExitLib: Add support for NPF NAE events (MMIO) >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yup, looks like that needs to be a "1ULL <<" instead of "1 <<". >>>>> I have verified that fixes the issue. >>>> >>>> I disagree. >>>> >>>> At that point, Displacement is of type INT64, and it may well be a >>>> negative value. We definitely want to multiply it by a signed int >>>> (values 1, 2, 4, 8). >>>> >>>> I commented on this before. Please see: >>>> >>>> (i) my comment block (10) here -- especially comment (10c): >>>> >>>> >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F60144&data=02%7C01%7Cthomas.lendacky%40amd.com%7Cec0cb2ad96694b66d8ff08d8228b7c8e%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637297329772337705&sdata=g%2BGooY1Sv0G7ydr11Jh%2BTXxo4Wy6ZWcT5Mq9VmWddi8%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> (alternative link: >>>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmid.mail-archive.com%2F169e44cb-2c1c-6d9a-342a-2a1f618e3753%40redhat.com&data=02%7C01%7Cthomas.lendacky%40amd.com%7Cec0cb2ad96694b66d8ff08d8228b7c8e%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637297329772337705&sdata=6p91db%2F6oz%2FHc65Sq4fvH%2FcPmiAfdS8MImsaznaoaXA%3D&reserved=0>) >>>> >>>> (ii) and my comment here: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F60146&data=02%7C01%7Cthomas.lendacky%40amd.com%7Cec0cb2ad96694b66d8ff08d8228b7c8e%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637297329772337705&sdata=iNIBJCIlfEEsY37cdwUbH27tx5HvXVs3PZiOQfaGeLQ%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> (alternative link: >>>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmid.mail-archive.com%2F139ce789-b938-c8b9-030e-c1b6c67e47ea%40redhat.com&data=02%7C01%7Cthomas.lendacky%40amd.com%7Cec0cb2ad96694b66d8ff08d8228b7c8e%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637297329772337705&sdata=mWCAHqTOpp7B9nWUJjTRJ9VZ74iwdElRTOoNhEpFs%2Bc%3D&reserved=0>). >>>> >>>> >>>> The compiler warning is well-meaning, but unnecessary. A 64-bit shift is >>>> *NOT* intended. We want to end up with one of the signed int (aka INT32) >>>> values 1, 2, 4 or 8. And then multiply the INT64 Displacement with that >>>> value. For the multiplication, the INT32 value 1, 2, 4 or 8 will be >>>> implicitly converted to INT64. That's entirely intentional. >>>> >>>> If we want to suppress the warning, while keeping the logic intact, we >>>> should employ an explicit cast: >>>> >>>> Displacement *= (INT64)(1 << Ext->Sib.Scale); >>> >>> Ok, that makes sense. I'll use the explicit cast. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> One thing I noticed is that the 32-bit builds >>>>> (PlatformCI_OvmfPkg_Windows_VS2019_PR, Platform_CI OVMF_IA32_NOOPT and >>>>> Platform_CI OVMF_IA32X64_NOOPT) encounter an error: >>>>> >>>>> ERROR - Linker #2001 from SecMain.lib(SecMain.obj) : unresolved >>>>> external symbol __allshl >>>>> ERROR - Linker #1120 from >>>>> d:\a\1\s\Build\Ovmf3264\NOOPT_VS2019\IA32\OvmfPkg\Sec\SecMain\DEBUG\SecMain.dll >>>>> : fatal 1 unresolved externals >>>>> ERROR - Compiler #1077 from NMAKE : fatal '"C:\Program Files >>>>> (x86)\Microsoft Visual >>>>> Studio\2019\Enterprise\VC\Tools\MSVC\14.26.28801\bin\Hostx86\x86\link.exe"' >>>>> : return code '0x460' >>>>> >>>>> Any idea what is causing this error? >>>> >>>> A left-shift operator (<<) applied to a 64-bit operand is somehow >>>> finding its way into the 32-bit SEC build. >>>> >>>> That is indeed wrong (for such cases, we're supposed to use LShiftU64() >>>> from BaseLib). >>>> >>>> What I don't understand however is that all of the "<<" operator uses, >>>> on 64-bit operands, should already be limited to code that is *only* >>>> built for X64! >>>> >>>> For example, with this series applied, SecMain in OVMF consumes >>>> "UefiCpuPkg/Library/CpuExceptionHandlerLib/SecPeiCpuExceptionHandlerLib.inf". >>>> And the latter consumes VmgExitLib. >>>> >>>> But VmgExitLib is resolved to >>>> "UefiCpuPkg/Library/VmgExitLibNull/VmgExitLibNull.inf", in the IA32 and >>>> IA32X64 DSC files. This Null instance contains no left-shifts. >>>> >>>> Therefore any << operators, applied to 64-bit operands, present in >>>> "OvmfPkg/Library/VmgExitLib", should never be compiled for IA32 and >>>> IA32X64. >>>> >>>> So I don't know where the problematic "<<" comes from. It does not come >>>> from VmgExitLib, as far as I can tell. >>> >>> Yes, I don't think it's coming from VmgExitLib, either. >>> >>> I wonder if it somehow might be coming from the MSR_SEV_ES_GHCB_REGISTER >>> struct and the bit fields that are used within it? That code, while not >>> executed in non-X64 builds because SEV-ES is not active, is still built >>> and maybe the bit fields result in implicit shifts occurring, specifically >>> in SevEsProtocolFailure()? >>> >>> I'll experiment with some things and see if that is the issue. >> >> I commented out the setting of the GhcbTerminate fields in the >> SevEsProtocolFailure() routine of OvmfPkg/Sec/SecMain.c and the error >> disappeared. I'll see if changing from using UINT64 to multiple UINT32 >> entries fixes the problem, but I wouldn't think that the bit fields >> would/should cause an issue here with 32-bit builds. > > Changing the bit fields from UINT64 to UINT32 fixed the error and SEV-ES > support continues to function properly. Since the architecture is little > endian, there was no need to pad out to the full UINT64 size for the > structs (the union takes care of that in general). The change looks like > this: > > diff --git a/MdePkg/Include/Register/Amd/Fam17Msr.h > b/MdePkg/Include/Register/Amd/Fam17Msr.h > index 466a3143599c..3cbe593868d4 100644 > --- a/MdePkg/Include/Register/Amd/Fam17Msr.h > +++ b/MdePkg/Include/Register/Amd/Fam17Msr.h > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ > **/ > typedef union { > struct { > - UINT64 Function:12; > + UINT32 Function:12; > } GhcbInfo; > > struct { > @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ typedef union { > } GhcbProtocol; > > struct { > - UINT64 Function:12; > - UINT64 ReasonCodeSet:4; > - UINT64 ReasonCode:8; > + UINT32 Function:12; > + UINT32 ReasonCodeSet:4; > + UINT32 ReasonCode:8; > } GhcbTerminate; > > VOID *Ghcb; > > Unless there are any concerns, I'll incorporate this change.
Right, my general disapproval of bit-fields notwithstanding, this looks consistent with most of the bit-fields under MdePkg! Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#62248): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/62248 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/74692413/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
