From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
To: "msalter-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org"
<msalter-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Leif Lindholm
<leif.lindholm-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
"matt.fleming-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org"
<matt.fleming-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org"
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/arm64: fix fdt-related memory reservation
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:06:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140908140609.GI12081@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1410183102-6969-1-git-send-email-msalter-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 02:31:42PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> Commit 86c8b27a01cf:
> "arm64: ignore DT memreserve entries when booting in UEFI mode
>
> prevents early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem() from being called for
> arm64 kernels booting via UEFI. This was done because the kernel
> will use the UEFI memory map to determine reserved memory regions.
> That approach has problems in that early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem()
> also reserves the FDT itself and any node-specific reserved memory.
> By chance of some kernel configs, the FDT may be overwritten before
> it can be unflattened and the kernel will fail to boot. More subtle
> problems will result if the FDT has node specific reserved memory
> which is not really reserved.
That doesn't sound like fun; apologies for allowing such brokenness
through in the first place.
[...]
> + /*
> + * Delete all memory reserve map entries. When booting via UEFI,
> + * kernel will use the UEFI memory map to find reserved regions.
> + */
> + num_rsv = fdt_num_mem_rsv(fdt);
> + for (i = 0; i < num_rsv; i++)
> + fdt_del_mem_rsv(fdt, i);
I don't think that's right. Won't the memreserve entries shift down by
one each time we call fdt_del_mem_rsv?
Shouldn't this be something like:
while (fdt_num_mem_rsv(fdt))
fdt_del_mem_rsv(fdt, 0);
Or we could count downwards.
Otherwise, the general approach sounds sane to me, so with that bug
fixed or disproven:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
Given this is mostly in the EFI stub I expect that this will go via the
EFI tree?
Mark.
> +
> node = fdt_subnode_offset(fdt, 0, "chosen");
> if (node < 0) {
> node = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, 0, "chosen");
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] efi/arm64: fix fdt-related memory reservation
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:06:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140908140609.GI12081@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1410183102-6969-1-git-send-email-msalter@redhat.com>
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 02:31:42PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> Commit 86c8b27a01cf:
> "arm64: ignore DT memreserve entries when booting in UEFI mode
>
> prevents early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem() from being called for
> arm64 kernels booting via UEFI. This was done because the kernel
> will use the UEFI memory map to determine reserved memory regions.
> That approach has problems in that early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem()
> also reserves the FDT itself and any node-specific reserved memory.
> By chance of some kernel configs, the FDT may be overwritten before
> it can be unflattened and the kernel will fail to boot. More subtle
> problems will result if the FDT has node specific reserved memory
> which is not really reserved.
That doesn't sound like fun; apologies for allowing such brokenness
through in the first place.
[...]
> + /*
> + * Delete all memory reserve map entries. When booting via UEFI,
> + * kernel will use the UEFI memory map to find reserved regions.
> + */
> + num_rsv = fdt_num_mem_rsv(fdt);
> + for (i = 0; i < num_rsv; i++)
> + fdt_del_mem_rsv(fdt, i);
I don't think that's right. Won't the memreserve entries shift down by
one each time we call fdt_del_mem_rsv?
Shouldn't this be something like:
while (fdt_num_mem_rsv(fdt))
fdt_del_mem_rsv(fdt, 0);
Or we could count downwards.
Otherwise, the general approach sounds sane to me, so with that bug
fixed or disproven:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Given this is mostly in the EFI stub I expect that this will go via the
EFI tree?
Mark.
> +
> node = fdt_subnode_offset(fdt, 0, "chosen");
> if (node < 0) {
> node = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, 0, "chosen");
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: "msalter@redhat.com" <msalter@redhat.com>
Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
"matt.fleming@intel.com" <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/arm64: fix fdt-related memory reservation
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:06:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140908140609.GI12081@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1410183102-6969-1-git-send-email-msalter@redhat.com>
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 02:31:42PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> Commit 86c8b27a01cf:
> "arm64: ignore DT memreserve entries when booting in UEFI mode
>
> prevents early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem() from being called for
> arm64 kernels booting via UEFI. This was done because the kernel
> will use the UEFI memory map to determine reserved memory regions.
> That approach has problems in that early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem()
> also reserves the FDT itself and any node-specific reserved memory.
> By chance of some kernel configs, the FDT may be overwritten before
> it can be unflattened and the kernel will fail to boot. More subtle
> problems will result if the FDT has node specific reserved memory
> which is not really reserved.
That doesn't sound like fun; apologies for allowing such brokenness
through in the first place.
[...]
> + /*
> + * Delete all memory reserve map entries. When booting via UEFI,
> + * kernel will use the UEFI memory map to find reserved regions.
> + */
> + num_rsv = fdt_num_mem_rsv(fdt);
> + for (i = 0; i < num_rsv; i++)
> + fdt_del_mem_rsv(fdt, i);
I don't think that's right. Won't the memreserve entries shift down by
one each time we call fdt_del_mem_rsv?
Shouldn't this be something like:
while (fdt_num_mem_rsv(fdt))
fdt_del_mem_rsv(fdt, 0);
Or we could count downwards.
Otherwise, the general approach sounds sane to me, so with that bug
fixed or disproven:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Given this is mostly in the EFI stub I expect that this will go via the
EFI tree?
Mark.
> +
> node = fdt_subnode_offset(fdt, 0, "chosen");
> if (node < 0) {
> node = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, 0, "chosen");
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-08 14:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-08 13:31 [PATCH] efi/arm64: fix fdt-related memory reservation Mark Salter
2014-09-08 13:31 ` Mark Salter
2014-09-08 13:31 ` Mark Salter
2014-09-08 13:56 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2014-09-08 13:56 ` Ard Biesheuvel
[not found] ` <1410183102-6969-1-git-send-email-msalter-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2014-09-08 14:06 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2014-09-08 14:06 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-08 14:06 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-08 14:21 ` Mark Salter
2014-09-08 14:21 ` Mark Salter
2014-09-08 14:21 ` Mark Salter
[not found] ` <1410186065.27715.2.camel-PDpCo7skNiwAicBL8TP8PQ@public.gmane.org>
2014-09-08 14:28 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-08 14:28 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-08 14:28 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-08 17:01 ` [PATCH v2] " Mark Salter
2014-09-08 17:01 ` Mark Salter
2014-09-08 17:01 ` Mark Salter
[not found] ` <1410195668-9975-1-git-send-email-msalter-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2014-09-08 19:58 ` Matt Fleming
2014-09-08 19:58 ` Matt Fleming
2014-09-08 19:58 ` Matt Fleming
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140908140609.GI12081@leverpostej \
--to=mark.rutland-5wv7dgnigg8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=Will.Deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=leif.lindholm-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=matt.fleming-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=msalter-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.