search for: base_relocation_t

...i/wrapper.h @@ -102,12 +102,14 @@ struct extra_hdr { __uint32_t heap_commit_sz; __uint32_t loader_flags; __uint32_t rva_and_sizes_nr; - __uint64_t export_table; - __uint64_t import_table; - __uint64_t resource_table; - __uint64_t exception_table; - __uint64_t certification_table; - __uint64_t base_relocation_table; + struct { + __uint64_t export_table; + __uint64_t import_table; + __uint64_t resource_table; + __uint64_t exception_table; + __uint64_t certification_table; + __uint64_t base_relocation_table; + } data_directory; } __packed; /* Extra header for PE32+ format @@ -136,12 +138,14 @@ st...

...i/wrapper.h @@ -102,12 +102,14 @@ struct extra_hdr { __uint32_t heap_commit_sz; __uint32_t loader_flags; __uint32_t rva_and_sizes_nr; - __uint64_t export_table; - __uint64_t import_table; - __uint64_t resource_table; - __uint64_t exception_table; - __uint64_t certification_table; - __uint64_t base_relocation_table; + struct { + __uint64_t export_table; + __uint64_t import_table; + __uint64_t resource_table; + __uint64_t exception_table; + __uint64_t certification_table; + __uint64_t base_relocation_table; + } data_directory; } __packed; /* Extra header for PE32+ format @@ -136,12 +138,14 @@ st...

The PE headers of the generated efi file were quite buggy. And since OVMF perform a few consistency checks, syslinux was unable to run on it. I don't pretend to have a thorough understanding of the PE+ headers, some bugs may remain. :) Celelibi (4): efi: Fix PE header field rva_and_sizes_nr efi: Location, size and alignment of .text section efi: Useless relocations in PE file efi: PE

On 12/01/2013 02:14 PM, Celelibi wrote: > There is no need to have a relocation section that nothing points at. > The image is still seen as relocatable as long as the Characteristics of > the FileHeader do not say otherwise. > > Moreover, the field base_relocation_table wasn't initialized properly > leading to unpredictable bugs. > > Signed-off-by: Celelibi <celelibi at gmail.com> I seem to hear about some UEFI implementations which would fail to boot unless there is a relocation section... I believe we had to add one to the Linux kernel f...

There is no need to have a relocation section that nothing points at. The image is still seen as relocatable as long as the Characteristics of the FileHeader do not say otherwise. Moreover, the field base_relocation_table wasn't initialized properly leading to unpredictable bugs. Signed-off-by: Celelibi <celelibi at gmail.com> --- I'm not 100% positive about the uselessness of the relocation section. However: 1) it works on my real hardware; 2) OVMF doesn't check the section headers at all; 3...

There is no need to have a relocation section that nothing points at. The image is still seen as relocatable as long as the Characteristics of the FileHeader do not say otherwise. Moreover, the field base_relocation_table wasn't initialized properly leading to unpredictable bugs. Signed-off-by: Celelibi <celelibi at gmail.com> --- efi/wrapper.c | 28 +++------------------------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) diff --git a/efi/wrapper.c b/efi/wrapper.c index 8b553f8..4839e52 100644...

Here are the fix as suggested. For patch 2/4 I chosed to hardcore the value 512 instead of computing the fittest needed value. There are 3 reasons for that. - The header size may not need to be bigger than this in a near future. - There is an test in case increasing the header size would be needed. - It would make the code quite more complex to keep a consistent value for all the fields when the