From: Baoquan He <bhe-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Dave Young <dyoung-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
thgarnie-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org,
Kees Cook <keescook-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>,
mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org,
hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org,
bp-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Correct a tiny mistake in code comment
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 17:45:05 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170308094505.GC6570@x1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACi5LpOjxiiCEvdOHGxHj_c+G-W3HKHr8EgOURpZ-cb5XqQnNQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
On 03/08/17 at 02:30pm, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Dave Young <dyoung-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On 03/08/17 at 03:47pm, Baoquan He wrote:
> >> - * We allocate runtime services regions bottom-up, starting from -4G, i.e.
> >> + * We allocate runtime services regions top-down, starting from -4G, i.e.
> >
> > Baoquan, I think original bottom-up is right, it is just considering
> > -68G as up, see the x86_64 mm.txt. We regard vmalloc as higher address
> > although from mathematics view it is lower then positive addresses.
>
> I think you have a valid point, but I think the -4G convention is
> probably too confusing to read and may lead to issues when we use this
> for future feature addition as well. It would be more useful to use
> the macros similar to the MODULES_{} addresses we use currently in
> 'arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64_types.h':
>
> #define MODULES_VADDR (__START_KERNEL_map + KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE)
> #define MODULES_END _AC(0xffffffffff000000, UL)
> #define MODULES_LEN (MODULES_END - MODULES_VADDR)
>
> May be we can use the following convention for the EFI_VA_{} addresses
> as per 'http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/x86/x86_64/mm.txt#L19':
>
> #define EFI_VA_START _AC(0xfffffffeffffffff, UL)
> #define EFI_VA_END _AC(0xffffffef00000000, UL)
Isn't it like this:
#define EFI_VA_START _AC(0xffffffff00000000, UL)
#define EFI_VA_END _AC(0xffffffef00000000, UL)
Just make them be equal to value which computer stores -4G and -68G?
You can see in arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c, it's using efi_va minus
size directly, here size should be 4K, page aligned.
efi_va -= size;
Above formula has considered the open interval attribute of
EFI_VA_START. Making EFI_VA_START be 0xfffffffeffffffff could be wrong.
Right?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
thgarnie@google.com, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Correct a tiny mistake in code comment
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 17:45:05 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170308094505.GC6570@x1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACi5LpOjxiiCEvdOHGxHj_c+G-W3HKHr8EgOURpZ-cb5XqQnNQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/08/17 at 02:30pm, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 03/08/17 at 03:47pm, Baoquan He wrote:
> >> - * We allocate runtime services regions bottom-up, starting from -4G, i.e.
> >> + * We allocate runtime services regions top-down, starting from -4G, i.e.
> >
> > Baoquan, I think original bottom-up is right, it is just considering
> > -68G as up, see the x86_64 mm.txt. We regard vmalloc as higher address
> > although from mathematics view it is lower then positive addresses.
>
> I think you have a valid point, but I think the -4G convention is
> probably too confusing to read and may lead to issues when we use this
> for future feature addition as well. It would be more useful to use
> the macros similar to the MODULES_{} addresses we use currently in
> 'arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64_types.h':
>
> #define MODULES_VADDR (__START_KERNEL_map + KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE)
> #define MODULES_END _AC(0xffffffffff000000, UL)
> #define MODULES_LEN (MODULES_END - MODULES_VADDR)
>
> May be we can use the following convention for the EFI_VA_{} addresses
> as per 'http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/x86/x86_64/mm.txt#L19':
>
> #define EFI_VA_START _AC(0xfffffffeffffffff, UL)
> #define EFI_VA_END _AC(0xffffffef00000000, UL)
Isn't it like this:
#define EFI_VA_START _AC(0xffffffff00000000, UL)
#define EFI_VA_END _AC(0xffffffef00000000, UL)
Just make them be equal to value which computer stores -4G and -68G?
You can see in arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c, it's using efi_va minus
size directly, here size should be 4K, page aligned.
efi_va -= size;
Above formula has considered the open interval attribute of
EFI_VA_START. Making EFI_VA_START be 0xfffffffeffffffff could be wrong.
Right?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-08 9:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-08 7:47 [PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Correct a tiny mistake in code comment Baoquan He
2017-03-08 7:47 ` Baoquan He
[not found] ` <1488959258-4731-1-git-send-email-bhe-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-03-08 7:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86/mm/KASLR: Correct the upper boundary of KALSR mm regions if adjacent to EFI Baoquan He
2017-03-08 7:47 ` Baoquan He
[not found] ` <1488959258-4731-2-git-send-email-bhe-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-03-08 8:18 ` Dave Young
2017-03-08 8:18 ` Dave Young
[not found] ` <20170308081857.GB12600-0VdLhd/A9Pl+NNSt+8eSiB/sF2h8X+2i0E9HWUfgJXw@public.gmane.org>
2017-03-08 8:35 ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-03-08 8:35 ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-03-08 15:32 ` Thomas Garnier
2017-03-15 6:13 ` Baoquan He
2017-03-15 6:13 ` Baoquan He
2017-03-15 6:31 ` Baoquan He
2017-03-15 6:31 ` Baoquan He
2017-03-08 10:45 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/efi/64: Clean up code comment about efi region Baoquan He
2017-03-08 10:45 ` Baoquan He
2017-03-08 8:18 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Correct a tiny mistake in code comment Dave Young
[not found] ` <20170308081812.GA12600-0VdLhd/A9Pl+NNSt+8eSiB/sF2h8X+2i0E9HWUfgJXw@public.gmane.org>
2017-03-08 8:45 ` Baoquan He
2017-03-08 8:45 ` Baoquan He
2017-03-08 8:54 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-03-08 9:08 ` Baoquan He
2017-03-09 1:38 ` Dave Young
2017-03-08 9:00 ` Bhupesh Sharma
[not found] ` <CACi5LpOjxiiCEvdOHGxHj_c+G-W3HKHr8EgOURpZ-cb5XqQnNQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2017-03-08 9:09 ` Baoquan He
2017-03-08 9:09 ` Baoquan He
2017-03-08 9:35 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-03-08 9:35 ` Borislav Petkov
[not found] ` <20170308093555.yrhygjxx4mu562lp-fF5Pk5pvG8Y@public.gmane.org>
2017-03-08 10:17 ` Baoquan He
2017-03-08 10:17 ` Baoquan He
2017-03-08 10:50 ` Borislav Petkov
[not found] ` <20170308105047.pggc6hai3gplsbg2-fF5Pk5pvG8Y@public.gmane.org>
2017-03-09 0:48 ` Dave Young
2017-03-09 0:48 ` Dave Young
2017-03-08 20:05 ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-03-08 20:05 ` Bhupesh Sharma
2017-03-08 9:45 ` Baoquan He [this message]
2017-03-08 9:45 ` Baoquan He
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=20170308094505.GC6570@x1 \
--to=bhe-h+wxahxf7alqt0dzr+alfa@public.gmane.org \
--cc=akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org \
--cc=bhsharma-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=bp-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org \
--cc=dyoung-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=keescook-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=thgarnie-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@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.