V2:
Update function name, add more detail description.
V1:
Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter

Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com>
---
 .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h       |  5 ++++
 .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c                       | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)

diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644
--- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
+++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
@@ -71,6 +71,11 @@
 #define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE         (32+9)
 #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS         (32+10)
 #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN                            (32+11)
+//
+// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
+// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it
+// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function.
+//
 #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE                      (32+12)
 
 #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL                      BIT27
diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644
--- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
+++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
@@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
 }
 
 /**
+  Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
+
+  @param[in]  Feature        Pointer to CPU feature
+
+  @retval TRUE  The CPU feature is valid.
+  @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
+**/
+BOOLEAN
+RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid (
+  IN UINT32        Feature
+  )
+{
+  UINT32      Data;
+
+  Data = Feature;
+  Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
+  //
+  // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
+  // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below.
+  //
+  if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
+    DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
+    return FALSE;
+  }
+  return TRUE;
+}
+
+/**
   Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask buffer.
 
   @param[in]  FeatureMask        Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
@@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
 
   VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
   Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
+  ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature));
   while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
     ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
                     != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
-- 
2.10.2.windows.1

_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

On 12/13/2017 10:35 AM, Song, BinX wrote:
> V2:
> Update function name, add more detail description.
> V1:
> Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter
> 
> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com>
> ---
>   .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h       |  5 ++++
>   .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c                       | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644
> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@
>   #define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE         (32+9)
>   #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS         (32+10)
>   #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN                            (32+11)
> +//
> +// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
> +// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it
> +// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function.
> +//
>   #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE                      (32+12)
>   
>   #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL                      BIT27
> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644
> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> @@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
>   }
>   
>   /**
> +  Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
> +
> +  @param[in]  Feature        Pointer to CPU feature
> +
> +  @retval TRUE  The CPU feature is valid.
> +  @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
> +**/
> +BOOLEAN
> +RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid (
> +  IN UINT32        Feature
> +  )
> +{
> +  UINT32      Data;
> +
> +  Data = Feature;
> +  Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
> +  //
> +  // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
> +  // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below.
> +  //
> +  if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
> +    DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
> +    return FALSE;
> +  }
> +  return TRUE;
> +}
> +
> +/**
>     Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask buffer.
>   
>     @param[in]  FeatureMask        Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
> @@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
>   
>     VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
>     Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
> +  ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature));
>     while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
>       ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
>                       != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
> 
Reviewed-by: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>

-- 
Thanks,
Ray
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

On 12/13/17 03:35, Song, BinX wrote:
> V2:
> Update function name, add more detail description.
> V1:
> Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter
> 
> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com>
> ---
>  .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h       |  5 ++++
>  .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c                       | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644
> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
> @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@
>  #define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE         (32+9)
>  #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS         (32+10)
>  #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN                            (32+11)
> +//
> +// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
> +// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it
> +// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function.
> +//
>  #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE                      (32+12)
>  
>  #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL                      BIT27
> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644
> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
> @@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
>  }
>  
>  /**
> +  Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
> +
> +  @param[in]  Feature        Pointer to CPU feature
> +
> +  @retval TRUE  The CPU feature is valid.
> +  @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
> +**/
> +BOOLEAN
> +RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid (
> +  IN UINT32        Feature
> +  )
> +{
> +  UINT32      Data;
> +
> +  Data = Feature;
> +  Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
> +  //
> +  // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
> +  // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below.
> +  //
> +  if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
> +    DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
> +    return FALSE;
> +  }
> +  return TRUE;
> +}
> +
> +/**
>    Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask buffer.
>  
>    @param[in]  FeatureMask        Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
> @@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
>  
>    VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
>    Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
> +  ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature));
>    while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
>      ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
>                      != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
> 

The consensus thus far seems to be that we should not add a separate
_MAX macro for this purpose. I don't understand why -- in my opinion it
would be easier to update the macro in one place only.

Now, I realize we have a library class header file here, and a library
instance. Those things are separate; it is conceivable that another
library instance is developed independently, and thus we should not tie
the MAX feature of *all* library instances to the same central class header.

However, this separation is already being violated in this patch: the
RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid() function is an implementation
detail of the (currently only one) library instance. Thus, the lib class
header should not refer to it, even in a comment.

So, I don't understand why we can't just add a _MAX macro. The central
library instance could use _MAX; all other (out of tree) instances would
not use _MAX.

Anyway, this doesn't mean the patch is not correct.

Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>

Thanks
Laszlo
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

On 12/13/2017 4:44 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 12/13/17 03:35, Song, BinX wrote:
>> V2:
>> Update function name, add more detail description.
>> V1:
>> Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter
>>
>> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
>> Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h       |  5 ++++
>>   .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c                       | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644
>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE         (32+9)
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS         (32+10)
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN                            (32+11)
>> +//
>> +// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
>> +// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it
>> +// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function.
>> +//
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE                      (32+12)
>>   
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL                      BIT27
>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644
>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> @@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
>>   }
>>   
>>   /**
>> +  Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
>> +
>> +  @param[in]  Feature        Pointer to CPU feature
>> +
>> +  @retval TRUE  The CPU feature is valid.
>> +  @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
>> +**/
>> +BOOLEAN
>> +RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid (
>> +  IN UINT32        Feature
>> +  )
>> +{
>> +  UINT32      Data;
>> +
>> +  Data = Feature;
>> +  Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
>> +  //
>> +  // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
>> +  // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below.
>> +  //
>> +  if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
>> +    DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
>> +    return FALSE;
>> +  }
>> +  return TRUE;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>>     Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask buffer.
>>   
>>     @param[in]  FeatureMask        Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
>> @@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
>>   
>>     VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
>>     Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
>> +  ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature));
>>     while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
>>       ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
>>                       != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
>>
> 
> The consensus thus far seems to be that we should not add a separate
> _MAX macro for this purpose. I don't understand why -- in my opinion it
> would be easier to update the macro in one place only.
> 
> Now, I realize we have a library class header file here, and a library
> instance. Those things are separate; it is conceivable that another
> library instance is developed independently, and thus we should not tie
> the MAX feature of *all* library instances to the same central class header.
> 
> However, this separation is already being violated in this patch: the
> RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid() function is an implementation
> detail of the (currently only one) library instance. Thus, the lib class
> header should not refer to it, even in a comment.
> 
> So, I don't understand why we can't just add a _MAX macro. The central
> library instance could use _MAX; all other (out of tree) instances would
> not use _MAX.
> 

I do not understand either:)
But if the change doesn't expose more interfaces (_MAX in this case), I
feel safe because we can change much freely in future.

> Anyway, this doesn't mean the patch is not correct.
> 
> Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> 
> Thanks
> Laszlo
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
> 


-- 
Thanks,
Ray
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

I agree to add one _MAX #define in library instance implementation instead of in class header file.



Jeff



________________________________
From: edk2-devel <edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org> on behalf of Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@Intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4:49:01 PM
To: Laszlo Ersek; Song, BinX; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Dong, Eric
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter

On 12/13/2017 4:44 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 12/13/17 03:35, Song, BinX wrote:
>> V2:
>> Update function name, add more detail description.
>> V1:
>> Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter
>>
>> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
>> Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h       |  5 ++++
>>   .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c                       | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644
>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE         (32+9)
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS         (32+10)
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN                            (32+11)
>> +//
>> +// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
>> +// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it
>> +// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function.
>> +//
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE                      (32+12)
>>
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL                      BIT27
>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644
>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> @@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
>>   }
>>
>>   /**
>> +  Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
>> +
>> +  @param[in]  Feature        Pointer to CPU feature
>> +
>> +  @retval TRUE  The CPU feature is valid.
>> +  @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
>> +**/
>> +BOOLEAN
>> +RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid (
>> +  IN UINT32        Feature
>> +  )
>> +{
>> +  UINT32      Data;
>> +
>> +  Data = Feature;
>> +  Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
>> +  //
>> +  // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
>> +  // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below.
>> +  //
>> +  if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
>> +    DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
>> +    return FALSE;
>> +  }
>> +  return TRUE;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>>     Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask buffer.
>>
>>     @param[in]  FeatureMask        Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
>> @@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
>>
>>     VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
>>     Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
>> +  ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature));
>>     while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
>>       ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
>>                       != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
>>
>
> The consensus thus far seems to be that we should not add a separate
> _MAX macro for this purpose. I don't understand why -- in my opinion it
> would be easier to update the macro in one place only.
>
> Now, I realize we have a library class header file here, and a library
> instance. Those things are separate; it is conceivable that another
> library instance is developed independently, and thus we should not tie
> the MAX feature of *all* library instances to the same central class header.
>
> However, this separation is already being violated in this patch: the
> RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid() function is an implementation
> detail of the (currently only one) library instance. Thus, the lib class
> header should not refer to it, even in a comment.
>
> So, I don't understand why we can't just add a _MAX macro. The central
> library instance could use _MAX; all other (out of tree) instances would
> not use _MAX.
>

I do not understand either:)
But if the change doesn't expose more interfaces (_MAX in this case), I
feel safe because we can change much freely in future.

> Anyway, this doesn't mean the patch is not correct.
>
> Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>


--
Thanks,
Ray
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Hi All,

Thanks for your suggestion, I will update a V3 patch.

Best Regards,
Bell Song

From: Fan Jeff [mailto:vanjeff_919@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:35 PM
To: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Song, BinX <binx.song@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>
Subject: 答复: [edk2] [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter


I agree to add one _MAX #define in library instance implementation instead of in class header file.



Jeff



________________________________
From: edk2-devel <edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org>> on behalf of Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@Intel.com<mailto:ruiyu.ni@Intel.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4:49:01 PM
To: Laszlo Ersek; Song, BinX; edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
Cc: Dong, Eric
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter

On 12/13/2017 4:44 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 12/13/17 03:35, Song, BinX wrote:
>> V2:
>> Update function name, add more detail description.
>> V1:
>> Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter
>>
>> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com<mailto:eric.dong@intel.com>>
>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>>
>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
>> Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com<mailto:binx.song@intel.com>>
>> ---
>>   .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h       |  5 ++++
>>   .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c                       | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644
>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h
>> @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE         (32+9)
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS         (32+10)
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN                            (32+11)
>> +//
>> +// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
>> +// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it
>> +// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function.
>> +//
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE                      (32+12)
>>
>>   #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL                      BIT27
>> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644
>> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c
>> @@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature (
>>   }
>>
>>   /**
>> +  Determines if the CPU feature is valid.
>> +
>> +  @param[in]  Feature        Pointer to CPU feature
>> +
>> +  @retval TRUE  The CPU feature is valid.
>> +  @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid.
>> +**/
>> +BOOLEAN
>> +RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid (
>> +  IN UINT32        Feature
>> +  )
>> +{
>> +  UINT32      Data;
>> +
>> +  Data = Feature;
>> +  Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL);
>> +  //
>> +  // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support.
>> +  // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below.
>> +  //
>> +  if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) {
>> +    DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature));
>> +    return FALSE;
>> +  }
>> +  return TRUE;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>>     Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask buffer.
>>
>>     @param[in]  FeatureMask        Pointer to CPU feature bit mask
>> @@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature (
>>
>>     VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc);
>>     Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32);
>> +  ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature));
>>     while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) {
>>       ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER))
>>                       != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER));
>>
>
> The consensus thus far seems to be that we should not add a separate
> _MAX macro for this purpose. I don't understand why -- in my opinion it
> would be easier to update the macro in one place only.
>
> Now, I realize we have a library class header file here, and a library
> instance. Those things are separate; it is conceivable that another
> library instance is developed independently, and thus we should not tie
> the MAX feature of *all* library instances to the same central class header.
>
> However, this separation is already being violated in this patch: the
> RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid() function is an implementation
> detail of the (currently only one) library instance. Thus, the lib class
> header should not refer to it, even in a comment.
>
> So, I don't understand why we can't just add a _MAX macro. The central
> library instance could use _MAX; all other (out of tree) instances would
> not use _MAX.
>

I do not understand either:)
But if the change doesn't expose more interfaces (_MAX in this case), I
feel safe because we can change much freely in future.

> Anyway, this doesn't mean the patch is not correct.
>
> Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>>
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>


--
Thanks,
Ray
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel