Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime

[Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>]

On Fri, 04 Sep, at 08:53:36PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 4 September 2015 at 20:23, Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Sep, at 03:24:21PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>
> >> Since the UEFI spec does not mandate an enumeration order for
> >> GetMemoryMap(), it seems to me that you still need to sort its output
> >> before laying out the VA space. Since you need to sort it anyway, why
> >> not simply sort it in reverse order and keep all the original code?
> >> Considering that this is meant for stable, that would keep the delta
> >> *much* smaller.
> >
> > Hmm... that'd be a neat trick and while it would save on the diff
> > size, I don't think it would be smaller in terms of change complexity.
> >
> > EDK2 sorts the memory map when EFI_PROPERTIES_TABLE is enabled, so we
> > can be reasonably sure the entry order returned by GetMemoryMap() is
> > compatible with the split regions, even if it's not mandated by the
> > spec.
> >
> 
> EDK2 does sort it, but the spec does not mandate it so another
> implementation may do something different entirely.
 
Yeah, we should get that requirement added to the spec.

> > For the non-EFI_PROPERTIES_TABLE case, things have been working fine
> > without the sorting, so I'm reluctant to introduce it now (it's also
> > much less of an issue there).
> >
> 
> I see. I do wonder, since the VA mapping preserves the modulo 2 MB
> alignment of each region, aren't you using much more VA space when
> mapping in reverse order as you are doing now?

It doesn't enforce a 2MB alignment for every entry, just those that
are actually 2MB aligned. This should be exactly what was done in the
previous version of the code. Do you see a bug?

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center