Aaron Durbin has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/34976 )
Change subject: cpu/intel/car: Make stack guards more useful on C_ENV_BOOTBLOCK ......................................................................
Patch Set 5:
(1 comment)
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/34976/5/src/cpu/intel/car/romstage.... File src/cpu/intel/car/romstage.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/34976/5/src/cpu/intel/car/romstage.... PS5, Line 43: _car_stack_end
For !C_ENV_BOOTBLOCK case, _car_stack_start is at _car_relocatable_data_end. […]
But why assume 0x2000?
Also, why not just base the location of the guard on _car_stack_start. Is that not the limit we care about?
I don't understand what makes the guards useful at a 256 byte offset, but that's separate. I think that rationale should be captured with an explanation instead of an assertion.