[ipxe-devel] Receiving http://ipxe.org/3c00e183 error after upgrade

[Dentcho Bankov]

Hi Michael,

I'm using gcc 4.8 in CentOS 6 and don' have much control of the environment but don't bother investigating I just wanted to make sure this is not a known issue.

I'm currently trying in a different environment and hopefully will track this down soon.

I'll post an update if it's worth sharing.

Best regards,
Dentcho Bankov

On 20.08.20, 16:43, "Michael Brown" <mcb30 at ipxe.org> wrote:

    On 20/08/2020 10:54, Dentcho Bankov wrote:
    > I’ve just pulled the latest iPXE code (after more than a couple of 
    > years) and started getting a https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fipxe.org%2F3c00e183&data=02%7C01%7Cdbankov%40vmware.com%7C207e833279e34cae3ea908d8450f0144%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637335278038841839&sdata=enh4%2FCmyIwahgsENsiC7ejMkP99omYHoO4roB%2FztwfE%3D&reserved=0 error when trying 
    > to boot over HTTPS.
    > 
    > Investigating a bit revealed that in my iPXE binary the asn1_algorithms 
    > link table entries are offset by 48 bytes while the size of the asn1 
    > _algorithm struct is 40 bytes so the ‘for_each_table_entry ( algorithm, 
    > ASN1_ALGORITHMS )’ doesn’t cycle over the asn1_algorithms in the link 
    > table correctly.
    > 
    > I tried adding a dummy field of 8 bytes to the asn1_algortihm struct 
    > which resolved the above error but then I started receiving 
    > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fipxe.org%2F420c6095&data=02%7C01%7Cdbankov%40vmware.com%7C207e833279e34cae3ea908d8450f0144%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637335278038851836&sdata=ZieMYJqb51HLeYJss0vMKRjWftj2%2B%2F8%2B851U4zxjkjI%3D&reserved=0 so I suspect I’m not building iPXE correctly.
    > 
    > Could you please let me know if somebody else had observed a similar 
    > problem lately and what may be causing it (I suspect this may be related 
    > to some alignment/padding misconfiguration but don’t know how this is 
    > controlled).

    Interesting.  Which compiler are you using?

    We've had previous issues with icc adding unexpected packing, but I have 
    not seen this problem with gcc.

    Thanks,

    Michael