[PATCH v2 04/14] arm64: efi: clean up Image header after PE header has been split off

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On 10 February 2017 at 10:11, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:55:37AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> After having split off the PE header, clean up the bits that remain:
>> use .long consistently, merge two adjacent #ifdef CONFIG_EFI blocks,
>> fix the offset of the PE header pointer and remove the redundant .align
>> that follows it.
>>
>> Also, since we will be eliminating all open coded constants from the
>> EFI header in subsequent patches, let's replace the open coded "ARM\x64"
>> magic number with its .ascii equivalent.
>>
>> No changes to the resulting binary image are intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/head.S | 17 ++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>> index f779a7483736..aa8f6cd8c33f 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>> @@ -91,20 +91,19 @@ _head:
>>       .quad   0                               // reserved
>>       .quad   0                               // reserved
>>       .quad   0                               // reserved
>> -     .byte   0x41                            // Magic number, "ARM\x64"
>> -     .byte   0x52
>> -     .byte   0x4d
>> -     .byte   0x64
>> +     .ascii  "ARM\x64"                       // Magic number
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_EFI
>> +     /*
>> +      * PE/COFF requires the offset to the PE header
>> +      * to be stored at offset 0x3c into the file.
>> +      */
>> +     .org    _head + 0x3c
>>       .long   pe_header - _head               // Offset to the PE header.
>
>
> Do we really need the .org? We expect all the other fields to stay in
> place without one, and it seems odd to special-case the PE header.
>

No, we don't. But the PE header offset is the only header field that
covered by a requirement that goes beyond what we stipulate ourselves,
so it makes sense to make that explicit imo. However, I'm happy to
drop it if people disagree.

> Otherwise, this looks good to me.
>

Cheers,