When PiSmmCore links against PeiDxeDebugLibReportStatusCode, the code
flow below will cause a FreePool() assertion issue.
PiSmmCoreMemoryAllocationLibConstructor() ->
SmmInitializeMemoryServices() ->
DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "SmmAddMemoryRegion\n")) in SmmAddMemoryRegion() ->
DebugPrint() -> REPORT_STATUS_CODE_EX() -> ReportStatusCodeEx() ->
AllocatePool()/FreePool(PiSmmCoreMemoryAllocLib) ->
ASSERT() at Head = CR (Buffer, POOL_HEAD, Data, POOL_HEAD_SIGNATURE)
in CoreFreePoolI() of DxeCore Pool.c
It is because at the point of FreePool() in the code flow above,
mSmmCoreMemoryAllocLibSmramRanges/mSmmCoreMemoryAllocLibSmramRangeCount
are not been initialized yet, the FreePool() will be directed to
gBS->FreePool(), that is wrong.
This patch is to temporarily use BootServicesData to hold the
SmramRanges data before calling SmmInitializeMemoryServices().
Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@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>
that assumes the SMRAM reserved range is only at the end of the SMRAM descriptor.
//
// This range has reserved area, calculate the left free size
//
gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges[Index].PhysicalSize = SmramResRegion->SmramReservedStart - gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges[Index].CpuStart;
Imagine the following scenario where we just reserve the first page of the SMRAM range:
SMRAM Descriptor:
Start: 0x80000000
Size: 0x02000000
Reserved Range:
Start: 0x80000000
Size: 0x00001000
In this case the adjustment to the SMRAM range size yields zero: ReservedStart - SMRAM Start is 0x80000000 - 0x80000000 = 0.
So even though most of the range is still free the IPL code decides its unusable.
The problem comes from the email thread: [edk2] PiSmmIpl SMRAM Reservation Logic.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bios.tianocore.devel/15268
Also to follow the idea in the email thread, the patch is to
1. Keep only one copy of full SMRAM ranges in gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges,
split record for SmmConfiguration->SmramReservedRegions and SMM Core that
will be marked to be EFI_ALLOCATED in gSmmCorePrivate->SmramRanges.
2. Handle SmmConfiguration->SmramReservedRegions at beginning of, at end of,
in the middle of, or cross multiple SmramRanges.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
git-svn-id: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2/code/trunk/edk2@18031 6f19259b-4bc3-4df7-8a09-765794883524
Per PI spec all allocation of SMRAM should use EfiRuntimeServicesCode or EfiRuntimeServicesData.
So SMM instance use EfiRuntimeServicesCode as the default memory allocation type instead of EfiBootServicesData.
This patch clarify this usage in comments.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Qiu Shumin <shumin.qiu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
git-svn-id: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2/code/trunk/edk2@17667 6f19259b-4bc3-4df7-8a09-765794883524
from FullSmramRanges and FullSmramRangeCount in SmmCorePrivate by Constructor.
It can avoid potential first call to FreePool() -> BufferInSmram() ->
if (mSmramRanges == NULL) { GetSmramRanges();} ->
gBS->LocateProtocol() at boottime with >= TPL_NOTIFY or
after ReadyToLock or at OS runtime.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
git-svn-id: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2/code/trunk/edk2@17463 6f19259b-4bc3-4df7-8a09-765794883524
Star Zeng
Hao Wu
Gary Lin
Qiu Shumin
Yao, Jiewen
Eric Dong
Liming Gao
lgao4
hhtian
mdkinney