https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417
The commit makes the following refinements in VolInfo source codes to
avoid VS2010/VS2012 build failure:
1. Refines coding style for function 'CombinePath' to declare local
variables at the beginning of the function block.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Yonghong Zhu <yonghong.zhu@intel.com>
https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417
The commit makes the following refinements in GenVtf source codes to
avoid VS2010/VS2012 build failure:
1. Refines coding style to declare local variables at the beginning of a
code block in function 'main'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Yonghong Zhu <yonghong.zhu@intel.com>
https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417
The commit makes the following refinements in GenFw source codes to
avoid VS2010/VS2012 build failure:
1. Replaces the uses of 'bool' with 'BOOLEAN' for accordance, and remove
the header file dependency for '<stdbool.h>'.
2. Refines coding style for function 'GetSymName' to declare local
variables at the beginning of the function block.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Yonghong Zhu <yonghong.zhu@intel.com>
Architectures such as AArch64 may run the OS with 16 KB or 64 KB sized
pages, and for this reason, the UEFI spec mandates a minimal allocation
granularity of 64 KB for regions that may require different memory
attributes at OS runtime.
So make PeiCore's implementation of AllocatePages () take this into
account as well.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
Remove the local definitions for the default and runtime page allocation
granularity macros, and switch to the new MdePkg versions.
Note that this replaces a reference to the 'default' version with the
more correct 'runtime' version, but this matters little in practice.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
Remove the local definitions for the default and runtime page allocation
granularity macros, and switch to the new MdePkg versions.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
The UEFI spec differs between architectures in the minimum alignment
and granularity of page allocations that are visible to the OS as
EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME regions.
So define macros that carry these values to the respective ProcessorBind.h
header files.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
This PCD holds the address mask for page table entries when memory
encryption is enabled on AMD processors supporting the Secure Encrypted
Virtualization (SEV) feature.
The mask is applied when page tables entries are created or modified.
CC: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
Cc: Feng Tian <feng.tian@intel.com>
Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Leo Duran <leo.duran@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
The patch doesn't impact the functionality.
The rename also fixes the inconsistency between function
header comments and function parameters.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jaben Carsey <jaben.carsey@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Wu Jiaxin <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Feng Tian <feng.tian@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
UINT8 *Ptr1, *Ptr2;
UINTN PtrDiff;
...
PtrDiff = (UINTN) (Ptr1 - Ptr2);
The commit will refine the pointer subtraction expressions by casting each
pointer to UINTN first and then perform the subtraction:
PtrDiff = (UINTN) Ptr1 - (UINTN) Ptr2;
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jaben Carsey <jaben.carsey@intel.com>
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
UINT8 *Ptr1, *Ptr2;
UINTN PtrDiff;
...
PtrDiff = (UINTN) (Ptr1 - Ptr2);
The commit will refine the pointer subtraction expressions by casting each
pointer to UINTN first and then perform the subtraction:
PtrDiff = (UINTN) Ptr1 - (UINTN) Ptr2;
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
UINT8 *Ptr1, *Ptr2;
UINTN PtrDiff;
...
PtrDiff = (UINTN) (Ptr1 - Ptr2);
The commit will refine the pointer subtraction expressions by casting each
pointer to UINTN first and then perform the subtraction:
PtrDiff = (UINTN) Ptr1 - (UINTN) Ptr2;
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Fu Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Wu Jiaxin <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
UINT8 *Ptr1, *Ptr2;
UINTN PtrDiff;
...
PtrDiff = (UINTN) (Ptr1 - Ptr2);
The commit will refine the pointer subtraction expressions by casting each
pointer to UINTN first and then perform the subtraction:
PtrDiff = (UINTN) Ptr1 - (UINTN) Ptr2;
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
UINT8 *Ptr1, *Ptr2;
UINTN PtrDiff;
...
PtrDiff = (UINTN) (Ptr1 - Ptr2);
The commit will refine the pointer subtraction expressions by casting each
pointer to UINTN first and then perform the subtraction:
PtrDiff = (UINTN) Ptr1 - (UINTN) Ptr2;
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Qin Long <qin.long@intel.com>
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
UINT8 *Ptr1, *Ptr2;
UINTN PtrDiff;
...
PtrDiff = (UINTN) (Ptr1 - Ptr2);
The commit will refine the pointer subtraction expressions by casting each
pointer to UINTN first and then perform the subtraction:
PtrDiff = (UINTN) Ptr1 - (UINTN) Ptr2;
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Feng Tian <feng.tian@intel.com>
Measure DBT into PCR[7] when it is updated between initial measure
if present and not empty. by following TCG PC Client PFP 00.49
Previous patch for PCR[7] DBT part is overrode.
dc9bd6ed28
Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Cc: Yao Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Yao Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Measure DBT into PCR[7] in initial measurement phase if present and
not empty by following TCG PC Client PFP 00.49.
The previous patch according to 00.21 is removed
1404e3a150
Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Cc: Yao Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Yao Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Nil UUID is a special case with all zeros value. This
patch is to handle this case to avoid the invalid DUID.
Cc: Naveen Santhapur <naveens@amiindia.co.in>
Cc: Ye Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>
Cc: Fu Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Wu Jiaxin <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ye Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Fu Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>
The InitializeConsolePipe() routine takes care to only set its output
argument *Interface if it is not already set, to prevent overwriting
the ConSplitter interface pointer that may have already been assigned.
However, the associated OUT argument 'Handle' is clobbered by the
subsequent unnecessary LocateDevicePath() invocation, which should
similarly be made dependent on whether *Interface has been set
already.
Reported-by: "Lee, Terry Ping-Chung" <terry.lee@hpe.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
In batch script file NmakeSubdirs.bat, the value changes made to the
variable 'TOOL_ERROR' within the 'setlocal...endlocal' block will not be
reflected in the return value of the script. A value of 0 will always be
returned. Thus, the script will not reflect the result of the 'nmake'
command correctly when building BaseTool source codes.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Yonghong Zhu <yonghong.zhu@intel.com>
To handle the deprecation of PrintLib APIs UnicodeValueToString and
AsciiValueToString by subsequent commits, the commit refines the logic for
the implemetation of the UnicodeValueToString and AsciiValueToString
services in EFI_PRINT2_PROTOCOL.
When the macro DISABLE_NEW_DEPRECATED_INTERFACES is defined (indicating
the deprecation of the PrintLib APIs), the above two services will ASSERT
and will return zero to reflect not being supported.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
It is the follow up of commits 51f0ceb..9e32e97 to replace
AsciiValueToString/UnicodeValueToString with
AsciiValueToStringS/UnicodeValueToStringS.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
It is the follow up of commits 51f0ceb..9e32e97 to replace
AsciiValueToString/UnicodeValueToString with
AsciiValueToStringS/UnicodeValueToStringS.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
It is the follow up of commits 51f0ceb..9e32e97 to replace
AsciiValueToString/UnicodeValueToString with
AsciiValueToStringS/UnicodeValueToStringS.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
It is the follow up of commits 51f0ceb..9e32e97 to replace
AsciiValueToString/UnicodeValueToString with
AsciiValueToStringS/UnicodeValueToStringS.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
This sets the recently introduced PCD PcdDxeNxMemoryProtectionPolicy to
a value that protects all memory regions except code regions against
inadvertent execution.
Note that this does not [yet] protect EfiLoaderData regions, due to
compatibility issues with shim and GRUB.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Recent changes to ShellPkg require a resolution for UefiBootManagerLib
for all platforms in ArmVirtPkg. So move the resolution to the shared
include ArmVirt.dsc.inc.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Using DxeServices::SetMemorySpaceAttributes to set cacheability
attributes has the side effect of stripping permission attributes,
given that those are bits in the same bitfield, and so setting the
Attributes argument to EFI_MEMORY_WB implies not setting EFI_MEMORY_XP
or EFI_MEMORY_RO attributes.
In fact, the situation is even worse, given that the descriptor returned
by DxeServices::GetMemorySpaceDescriptor does not reflect the permission
attributes that may have been set by the preceding call to
DxeServices::AddMemorySpace if PcdDxeNxMemoryProtectionPolicy has been
configured to map EfiConventionalMemory with non-executable permissions.
Note that this applies equally to the non-executable stack and to PE/COFF
sections that may have been mapped with R-X or RW- permissions. This is
due to the ambiguity in the meaning of the EFI_MEMORY_RO/EFI_MEMORY_XP
attributes when used in the GCD memory map, i.e., between signifying
that an underlying RAM region has the controls to be configured as
read-only or non-executable, and signifying that the contents of a
certain UEFI memory region allow them to be mapped with certain
restricted permissions.
So let's check the policy in PcdDxeNxMemoryProtectionPolicy directly,
and set the EFI_MEMORY_XP attribute if appropriate for
EfiConventionalMemory regions.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
v2: update hash value in SecureBootConfig.vfr to keep
them consistent with macro definition in SecureBootConfigImpl.h
since we removed the sha-1 definition in Hash table
and related macro, but the macro definition HashAlg index
may be value 4 which is exceed the range of the Hash
table array.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Zhang Lubo <lubo.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Long Qin <qin.long@intel.com>
Cc: Yao Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
Define the prompt and help information for PcdMaxIScsiAttemptNumber.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Zhang Lubo <lubo.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Ye Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>
Cc: Fu Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>
Cc: Wu Jiaxin <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Wu Jiaxin <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>
v2: need to check the global variable mPrivate before using it in
the Convert AttemptConfigData To IfrNvData by Keyword function.
Add check logic for some attempt variable to enhance code in iSCSI.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Zhang Lubo <lubo.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Ye Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>
Cc: Fu Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>
Cc: Wu Jiaxin <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Wu Jiaxin <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Maurice Ma <maurice.ma@intel.com>
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Richard Thomaiyar <richard.marian.thomaiyar@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Maurice Ma <maurice.ma@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Hao Wu
Ard Biesheuvel
Leo Duran
Ruiyu Ni
Zhang, Chao B
Jiaxin Wu
Star Zeng
Zhang Lubo
edk2-devel On Behalf Of rthomaiy