search for: exitbootservices

...UTC+01:00, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:54 PM, celelibi--- via Syslinux >> <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: >>> From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> >>> >>> Some firmware implementations may need ExitBootServices to be called >>> twice. The second time with an updated memory map key. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> >>> --- >>> efi/main.c | 75 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- >&...

...So, why not try a memory allocation anyway? It works on some >>> implementations (including mine) despite being forbidden by the >>> specification, but we're in this situation because the firmware was >>> already not complying with the UEFI spec. >> >> If ExitBootServices is unsuccessful, UEFI firmware memory allocation >> should still be valid. I don't believe it's forbidden at all since >> ExitBootServices() was NOT successful. > > I disagree with this. The documentation of ExitBootServices(), section > 6.4, say (typo included): >...

...<gene.cumm at gmail.com>: >>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:54 PM, celelibi--- via Syslinux >>> <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: >>>> From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> >>>> >>>> Some firmware implementations may need ExitBootServices to be called >>>> twice. The second time with an updated memory map key. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> efi/main.c | 75 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++...

From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> On some architecture, including my hardware, the function ExitBootServices may need to be called twice in order to successfully exit the boot services. As stated by the UEFI spec, the first call to ExitBootServices may perform a partial shutdown of the services. It seems that during this partial shutdown, the memory map can be modified, thus making another call to GetMemo...

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:54 PM, celelibi--- via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> > > Some firmware implementations may need ExitBootServices to be called > twice. The second time with an updated memory map key. > > Signed-off-by: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> > --- > efi/main.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) &g...

2015-11-02 12:34 UTC+01:00, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com>: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:54 PM, celelibi--- via Syslinux > <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: >> From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> >> >> Some firmware implementations may need ExitBootServices to be called >> twice. The second time with an updated memory map key. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> >> --- >> efi/main.c | 75 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- >> 1 file changed, 64...

Sometimes the UEFI memory map changes between GetMemoryMap() and ExitBootServices(), making the MapKey value incorrect. Per the UEFI spec, the memory map should then be fetched again and exiting retried. Signed-off-by: Tom Huibregtse <thuibregtse at xes-inc.com> --- efi/main.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+),...

From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> Some firmware implementations may need ExitBootServices to be called twice. The second time with an updated memory map key. Signed-off-by: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> --- efi/main.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/efi/main.c b/efi/...

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:54:04 +0200 celelibi--- via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> > > Some firmware implementations may need ExitBootServices to be called > twice. The second time with an updated memory map key. > > Signed-off-by: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> > --- > efi/main.c | 75 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file > changed, 64 insertions(+), 11 deletions(...

...patch works. From: "Tom Huibregtse via Syslinux" <syslinux at syslinux.org> To: syslinux at syslinux.org Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 8:04:06 AM Subject: [syslinux] [PATCH] efi/main: add retry to exit_boot() Sometimes the UEFI memory map changes between GetMemoryMap() and ExitBootServices(), making the MapKey value incorrect. Per the UEFI spec, the memory map should then be fetched again and exiting retried. Signed-off-by: Tom Huibregtse <thuibregtse at xes-inc.com> --- efi/main.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+...

...is as follows: - Implement PE signatures upstream. - Uplift as much of secureboot to upstream as policy permits. I would like to be in partnership over this with some distro people so that they can carry remaining part (unless FSF allows secureboot per policy) > There is still open question that ExitBootServices() should be called by GRUB2 > loader or by loaded image itself on EFI platform. UEFI spec 2.4 states in many > places that it is "OS loader" or "Operating System" responsibility. However, > I think that "OS loader" should be understood as a integral piece of &...

Yes, I think so. The integer really means the same as EFI's ExitBootServices. Matt Fleming <matt at console-pimps.org> wrote: >On Fri, 02 Aug, at 07:50:57AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> I don't know if there is a meaningful difference between "localboot >-1" >> and "localboot 0" on EFI... they are really two different ways to as...

...e attempt to call exit_boot itself (either that or dprintf >> doesn't work within exit_boot?). > > I inlined exit_boot in case something odd was going on with calling > it, and I got more failure information. > > This call: > > status = uefi_call_wrapper(BS->ExitBootServices, 2, image_handle, > key); > > is returning EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER, which (according to > https://uefi.org/specs/UEFI/2.10/07_Services_Boot_Services.html#id41 ) > means "key" is incorrect. > > However I'm not sure if that was because I'd interspersed dprintf(...

On 08/01/2013 01:13 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > > I've got a patch to support LOCALBOOT -1 on EFI, which will boot the > next entry in the EFI Boot Manager (the thing configured with > efibootmgr), and which I'll commit shortly, but it doesn't support > LOCALBOOT 0. > > I'm not actually convinced that we should support LOCALBOOT 0 under EFI. > Even on BIOS,

So will the patch be applied in 6.02? Am 02.08.2013 17:30 schrieb "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor.com>: > Yes, I think so. The integer really means the same as EFI's > ExitBootServices. > > Matt Fleming <matt at console-pimps.org> wrote: > >On Fri, 02 Aug, at 07:50:57AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> I don't know if there is a meaningful difference between "localboot > >-1" > >> and "localboot 0" on EFI... they are re...

Hello, I'm booting linux-3.16-686-pae kernel (32-bit) via syslinux.efi 64-bit version. After boot linux sees only 2.5G of RAM while system has 32G installed. If I boot the same kernel with GRUB64 efi instead of syslinux then amount of RAM available to linux is 32G. Is this a bug or I'm missing something? syslinux.cfg: label live-686-pae menu label Linux (686-pae) menu

...apply, given -- again -- that the commit message says, "firmware is likely to use the GHCB of the OS". So I think the second problem statement must apply. (I think the "reserved allocation" above is "reserved" only because we want to keep the OS out of it around the ExitBootServices() transition.) Back to the email: On 09/09/20 10:27, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:46, Borislav Petkov <bp at alien8.de> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:16:12PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: >>> so each GHCB in the system needs to be identity >>&...

From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel at suse.de> Hi, here is a new version of the SEV-ES Guest Support patches for x86. The previous versions can be found as a linked list starting here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200824085511.7553-1-joro at 8bytes.org/ I updated the patch-set based on ther review comments I got and the discussions around it. Another important change is that the early IDT

From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel at suse.de> Hi, here is a new version of the SEV-ES Guest Support patches for x86. The previous versions can be found as a linked list starting here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200824085511.7553-1-joro at 8bytes.org/ I updated the patch-set based on ther review comments I got and the discussions around it. Another important change is that the early IDT