Am 18. Dezember 2023 23:41:08 MEZ schrieb Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>:
>On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 11:34:16PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> Or take:
>>
>> load host 0:1 $c kernel.efi
>> load host 0:1 $d initrd.img
>>
>> How could we ensure that initrd.img is not overwriting a part of kernel.efi
>> without memory allocation?
>
>Today, invalid checksum as part of some part of the kernel fails. But
>how do we do this tomorrow, are you suggesting that "load" perform
>malloc() in some predefined size? If $c is below $d and $c + kernel.efi
>is now above $d we can throw an error before trying to load, yes. But
>what about:
>load host 0:1 $d initrd.img
>load host 0:1 $c kernel.efi
>
>In that case (which is only marginally contrived, the more real case is
>loading device tree in to unexpectedly large ramdisk because someone
>didn't understand the general advice on why device tree is lower than
>ramdisk address) I'm fine with an error that amounts to "you just
>corrupted another allocation" and then "fail, reset the board" or so.
>
Our current malloc library cannot manage the complete memory. We need a library
like lmb which should also cover the memory management that we currently have
in lib/efi/efi_memory.c. This must include a memory type attribute for usage in
the GetMemoryMap() service. A management on page level seems sufficient.
The load command should permanently allocate memory in that lmb+ library.
We need an unload command to free the memory if we want to reuse the memory or
we might let the load comand free the memory if exactly the same start address
is reused.
Best regards
Heinrich
