Re: [PATCH v1] efi_loader: Handle GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC

2025-04-05 Thread Ilias Apalodimas
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 09:46, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 11:22:58PM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 08:12, Varadarajan Narayanan > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 09:28:04AM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > > Hi Varadarajan >

Re: [PATCH v1] efi_loader: Handle GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC

2025-04-01 Thread Ilias Apalodimas
Thanks, That works fine. Heinrich feel free to queue this up Cheers /Ilias On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 12:31, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:02:05AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 09:46, Varadarajan Narayanan > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Mar

Re: [PATCH v1] efi_loader: Handle GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC

2025-04-01 Thread Varadarajan Narayanan
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:02:05AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 09:46, Varadarajan Narayanan > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 11:22:58PM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 08:12, Varadarajan Narayanan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed,

Re: [PATCH v1] efi_loader: Handle GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC

2025-03-31 Thread Varadarajan Narayanan
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 11:22:58PM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 08:12, Varadarajan Narayanan > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 09:28:04AM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > Hi Varadarajan > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 at 07:47, Varadarajan Narayanan > > > wro

Re: [PATCH v1] efi_loader: Handle GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC

2025-03-29 Thread Ilias Apalodimas
On Sat Mar 29, 2025 at 2:02 PM EET, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 3/26/25 06:46, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: >> If the EFI runtime services pointers are relocated even though >> relocation is skipped, it corrupts some other data resulting in some >> unexpected behaviour. >> >> In this specific c

Re: [PATCH v1] efi_loader: Handle GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC

2025-03-29 Thread Heinrich Schuchardt
On 3/26/25 06:46, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: If the EFI runtime services pointers are relocated even though relocation is skipped, it corrupts some other data resulting in some unexpected behaviour. In this specific case, it overwrote some page table entries resulting in the device memory addr

Re: [PATCH v1] efi_loader: Handle GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC

2025-03-29 Thread Ilias Apalodimas
+CC Heinrich who has looked the relocation stuff a bit more On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 23:22, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 08:12, Varadarajan Narayanan > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 09:28:04AM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > Hi Varadarajan > > > > > > On Wed, 26

Re: [PATCH v1] efi_loader: Handle GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC

2025-03-27 Thread Ilias Apalodimas
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 08:12, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 09:28:04AM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Hi Varadarajan > > > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 at 07:47, Varadarajan Narayanan > > wrote: > > > > > > If the EFI runtime services pointers are relocated even though > >

Re: [PATCH v1] efi_loader: Handle GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC

2025-03-26 Thread Varadarajan Narayanan
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 09:28:04AM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > Hi Varadarajan > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 at 07:47, Varadarajan Narayanan > wrote: > > > > If the EFI runtime services pointers are relocated even though > > relocation is skipped, it corrupts some other data resulting in some > > un

Re: [PATCH v1] efi_loader: Handle GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC

2025-03-26 Thread Ilias Apalodimas
Hi Varadarajan On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 at 07:47, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > > If the EFI runtime services pointers are relocated even though > relocation is skipped, it corrupts some other data resulting in some > unexpected behaviour. > > In this specific case, it overwrote some page table entri

[PATCH v1] efi_loader: Handle GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC

2025-03-25 Thread Varadarajan Narayanan
If the EFI runtime services pointers are relocated even though relocation is skipped, it corrupts some other data resulting in some unexpected behaviour. In this specific case, it overwrote some page table entries resulting in the device memory address range's mappings getting removed. Eventually,