On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 04:20:19PM -0700, Roy Franz wrote: > I think we'll also run into some alignment issues if the loader really just > loads the section ( we just have the one) rather than the whole file. > From reviewing the PE/COFF spec again we violate the relationship > between FileAlignment and SectionAlignment. It's hard to pin down exactly whose burden this is - clearly the RVAs and the File Addresses in the binary are supposed to jive with SectionAlignment and FileAlignment, respectively, but if they don't, it's unclear what a loader should do about it. I've got some (x86) hardware where LoadImage() rejects the binary entirely in this case, but the code in tiano doesn't seem to care. Our loader code in shim ignores both fields entirely - once we've checked validity in terms of overlap and boundaries, we happily give sections whatever offset they've requested. I suppose on some machines that may mean that a malformed binary gets a /fault/ pretty quickly. I'll add checks for those alignments in shim 0.9 , release date TBD. So because of that x86 machine that does error out, I've got some different values here: https://github.com/vathpela/shim/blob/manual-headers/crt0-efi-x86_64.S#L72 than Ard does in his Aarch64 headers. There are some other things wrong on that branch because I didn't understand well enough while writing some of it - it's basically still there for reference, I don't anticipate ever shipping it. -- Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
