From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
crobinso@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu PATCH] hw/i386/pc_sysfw: support more than one flash drive
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:17:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5293B068.2040204@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87txf033b0.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
On 11/25/13 16:32, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>>
>> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
>> -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>>
>> on the command line. The flash images will be mapped under 4G in their
>> reverse unit order -- that is, with their base addresses progressing
>> downwards, in increasing unit order.
>>
>> (The unit number increases with command line order if not explicitly
>> specified.)
>>
>> This accommodates the following use case: suppose that OVMF is split in
>> two parts, a writeable host file for non-volatile variable storage, and a
>> read-only part for bootstrap and decompressible executable code.
>>
>> The binary code part would be read-only, centrally managed on the host
>> system, and passed in as unit 0. The variable store would be writeable,
>> VM-specific, and passed in as unit 1.
>>
>> 00000000ffe00000-00000000ffe1ffff (prio 0, R-): system.flash1
>> 00000000ffe20000-00000000ffffffff (prio 0, R-): system.flash0
>>
>> (If the guest tries to write to the flash range that is backed by the
>> read-only drive, bdrv_write() in pflash_update() will correctly deny the
>> write with -EACCES, and pflash_update() won't care, which suits us well.)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c b/hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c
>> index e917c83..1c3e3d6 100644
>> --- a/hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c
>> +++ b/hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c
>> @@ -72,35 +72,65 @@ static void pc_isa_bios_init(MemoryRegion *rom_memory,
>> memory_region_set_readonly(isa_bios, true);
>> }
>>
>> +/* This function maps flash drives from 4G downward, in order of their unit
>> + * numbers. Addressing within one flash drive is of course not reversed.
>> + *
>> + * The drive with unit number 0 is mapped at the highest address, and it is
>> + * passed to pc_isa_bios_init(). Merging severral drives for isa-bios is not
>> + * supported.
>> + *
>> + * The caller is responsible to pass in the non-NULL @pflash_drv that
>> + * corresponds to the flash drive with unit number 0.
>> + */
>> static void pc_system_flash_init(MemoryRegion *rom_memory,
>> DriveInfo *pflash_drv)
>> {
>> + int unit = 0;
>> BlockDriverState *bdrv;
>> int64_t size;
>> - hwaddr phys_addr;
>> + hwaddr phys_addr = 0x100000000ULL;
>> int sector_bits, sector_size;
>> pflash_t *system_flash;
>> MemoryRegion *flash_mem;
>> + char name[64];
>>
>> - bdrv = pflash_drv->bdrv;
>> - size = bdrv_getlength(pflash_drv->bdrv);
>> sector_bits = 12;
>> sector_size = 1 << sector_bits;
>>
>> - if ((size % sector_size) != 0) {
>> - fprintf(stderr,
>> - "qemu: PC system firmware (pflash) must be a multiple of 0x%x\n",
>> - sector_size);
>> - exit(1);
>> - }
>> + do {
>> + bdrv = pflash_drv->bdrv;
>> + size = bdrv_getlength(bdrv);
>> + if ((size % sector_size) != 0) {
>> + fprintf(stderr,
>> + "qemu: PC system firmware (pflash segment %d) must be a "
>> + "multiple of 0x%x\n", unit, sector_size);
>> + exit(1);
>> + }
>> + if (size > phys_addr) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "qemu: pflash segments must fit under 4G "
>> + "cumulatively\n");
>
> I suspect things go haywire long before you hit address zero.
>
> Note that both pc_piix.c and pc_q35.c leave a hole in RAM just below 4G.
> The former's hole starts at 0xe0000000, the latter's at 0xb0000000.
> Should that be the limit?
I wanted to do the bare minimal here, to catch obviously wrong backing
drives (like a 10G file). This is already more verification than what
the current code does.
I wouldn't mind more a specific check, but I don't want to suggest (with
more specific code) that it's actually *safe* to go down to the limit
that I'd put here.
For example, the IO-APIC mmio range is [0xFEE00000..0xFEE01000[, leaving
free 18MB-4KB just below 4G. (Of which the current OVMF, including
variable store, takes up 2MB.) Grep IO_APIC_DEFAULT_ADDRESS.
I just don't want to send the message "it's safe to go all the way down
there". Right now the responsibility is with the user (you can specify a
single pflash device that's 20MB in size even now), and I'd like to
stick with that.
I believe that
pflash_cfi01_register()
sysbus_mmio_map()
sysbus_mmio_map_common()
memory_region_add_subregion()
memory_region_add_subregion_common()
could, in theory, find a conflict at runtime (see the #if 0-surrounded
collision warning in memory_region_add_subregion_common()). But the
memory API doesn't consider such collisions hard errors, and no status
code is propagated to the caller.
So, if a saner / more reliable limit can be identified, I wouldn't mind
checking against that, but right now I know of no such sane / general
enough limit.
>
>> + exit(1);
>> + }
>>
>> - phys_addr = 0x100000000ULL - size;
>> - system_flash = pflash_cfi01_register(phys_addr, NULL, "system.flash", size,
>> - bdrv, sector_size, size >> sector_bits,
>> - 1, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0);
>> - flash_mem = pflash_cfi01_get_memory(system_flash);
>> + phys_addr -= size;
>>
>> - pc_isa_bios_init(rom_memory, flash_mem, size);
>> + /* pflash_cfi01_register() creates a deep copy of the name */
>> + snprintf(name, sizeof name, "system.flash%d", unit);
>> + system_flash = pflash_cfi01_register(phys_addr, NULL /* qdev */, name,
>> + size, bdrv, sector_size,
>> + size >> sector_bits,
>> + 1 /* width */,
>> + 0x0000 /* id0 */,
>> + 0x0000 /* id1 */,
>> + 0x0000 /* id2 */,
>> + 0x0000 /* id3 */,
>> + 0 /* be */);
>> + if (unit == 0) {
>> + flash_mem = pflash_cfi01_get_memory(system_flash);
>> + pc_isa_bios_init(rom_memory, flash_mem, size);
>> + }
>> + pflash_drv = drive_get(IF_PFLASH, 0, ++unit);
>> + } while (pflash_drv != NULL);
>> }
>>
>> static void old_pc_system_rom_init(MemoryRegion *rom_memory, bool isapc_ram_fw)
>
> The drive with index 0 is passed as parameter pflash_drv. The others
> the function gets itself. I find that ugly. Have you considered
> dropping the parameter?
I didn't like drive_get() to begin with. It always starts to scan the
drive list from the beginning, which makes the new loop in
pc_system_flash_init() O(n^2).
I was missing an interator-style interface for the drives, but I found
none, and I thought that iterating myself through them in O(n) (and
checking for the types) would break the current DriveInfo encapsulation.
So I kinda gave up on "elegance".
Ideally, what should be dropped is the "unit" local variable in
pc_system_flash_init(). The function should continue to take
"pflash_drv", which should however qualify as a pre-initialized
iterator. Then pc_system_flash_init() should traverse it until it runs out.
I can of course remove the parameter and start a "while" loop
(rather than a "do" loop) with drive_get(IF_PFLASH, 0, 0), if you
consider that an improvement.
Thanks!
Laszlo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-25 20:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-21 22:21 [Qemu-devel] [qemu PATCH] hw/i386/pc_sysfw: support more than one flash drive Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-21 22:21 ` [Qemu-devel] [edk2 PATCH] OvmfPkg: split the variable store to a separate file Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-22 9:27 ` [Qemu-devel] [edk2] " Paolo Bonzini
2013-11-22 11:46 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-22 11:56 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-11-22 12:12 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-22 17:37 ` [Qemu-devel] " Jordan Justen
2013-11-22 18:43 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-22 20:51 ` Jordan Justen
2013-11-22 20:54 ` Eric Blake
2013-11-22 21:18 ` Jordan Justen
2013-11-22 21:40 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-22 21:45 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-21 22:26 ` [Qemu-devel] [qemu PATCH] hw/i386/pc_sysfw: support more than one flash drive Eric Blake
2013-11-21 22:33 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-22 12:21 ` Markus Armbruster
2013-11-22 18:30 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-25 15:22 ` Markus Armbruster
2013-11-25 19:45 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-26 12:36 ` Markus Armbruster
2013-11-26 13:32 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-26 17:54 ` Jordan Justen
2013-11-27 13:52 ` Markus Armbruster
2013-11-27 14:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-27 14:45 ` Markus Armbruster
2013-11-27 15:18 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-27 17:22 ` Markus Armbruster
2013-11-27 17:34 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-27 20:35 ` Markus Armbruster
2013-11-26 13:41 ` [Qemu-devel] [edk2] " Paolo Bonzini
2013-11-26 13:53 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-26 14:06 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-11-26 12:53 ` [Qemu-devel] " Markus Armbruster
2013-11-26 13:27 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-27 13:49 ` Markus Armbruster
2013-11-27 14:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-25 15:32 ` Markus Armbruster
2013-11-25 20:17 ` Laszlo Ersek [this message]
2013-11-26 13:11 ` Markus Armbruster
2013-11-26 13:39 ` Laszlo Ersek
2013-11-26 15:35 ` Markus Armbruster
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=5293B068.2040204@redhat.com \
--to=lersek@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=crobinso@redhat.com \
--cc=edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.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.