H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 02/18/2010 12:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> On 02/18/2010 10:13 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Instead of saving the old INT 0x13 and 0x19 handlers in ROM which fails >>> under QEMU as it enforces protection, keep them in spare vectors of the >>> interrupt table, namely INT 0x80 and 0x81. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka<jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> commit a4492b03932ea3c9762372f3e15e8c6526ee56c6 >> Author: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Fri Jul 18 11:22:59 2008 -0700 >> >> kvm: extboot: don't use interrupt vectors $0x2b and $0x2c >> >> extboot's use of interrupt vectors $0x2b and $0x2c is unsafe, as these >> interrupt vectors fall in the OS-use range (0x20-0x3f). Furthermore, >> it's unnecessary: we can keep a local pointer instead of hooking >> another interrupt as long as we can write to our own segment. >> >> Make the extboot segment writable, and use local variables to hold the >> old link pointers. >> >> If this turns out to cause problems, we should probably switch to >> using vectors in the 0xc0-0xef range, and/or other BIOS-reserved >> memory. >> >> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Sounds like 0x80/0x81 is probably not the best choice. hpa: any >> suggestions? > > There aren't really any free memory that you can just use -- there are > no free interrupt vectors which are safe to use. Furthermore, this > implies that there is a bug in the Qemu BIOS in this respect: the PCI > spec requires that the "ROM region" (upper memory area) that contains > shadow ROM contents be writable until INT 19h is executed -- at *that* > point it gets write protected. Shall the protection start _before_ INT 19 or somewhere _while_ it is processed? I'm asking as extboot redirect the handler and writes to some variable in its own handler. If the protection is already active at this point, we must move at least one of the variables out of the shadow ROM. > > However, as I did point out in the original comment, there are some > BIOSes in the field which uses vectors 0xc0-0xdf as a scratch memory > pool -- usually to have somewhere to stash a small stack -- so if you > absolutely have to go down this route that range those probably be the > safest. An alternative would be to use memory in the BDA in the range > 0x4ac-0x4ff (absolute), which appears to be available for BIOS-specific > uses. No problem moving to 0xc0 vectors if we have to (though my PC interrupt vector docs all state that already 0x80 is BIOS/BASIC domain). > >>> NEITHER OF THESE OPTIONS ARE SAFE ON REAL HARDWARE << > These are both BIOS-specific use areas. > Extboot is not targeting real hardware. It is built for a paravirtual interface to QEMU. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
