Re: [PATCH 6/6] powerpc/rtas: constrain user region allocation to RMA

[Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>]

Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> writes:
> On 15/01/2021 09:00, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>> Memory locations passed as arguments from the OS to RTAS usually need
>> to be addressable in 32-bit mode and must reside in the Real Mode
>> Area. On PAPR guests, the RMA starts at logical address 0 and is the
>> first logical memory block reported in the LPAR’s device tree.
>> 
>> On powerpc targets with RTAS, Linux makes available to user space a
>> region of memory suitable for arguments to be passed to RTAS via
>> sys_rtas(). This region (rtas_rmo_buf) is allocated via the memblock
>> API during boot in order to ensure that it satisfies the requirements
>> described above.
>> 
>> With radix MMU, the upper limit supplied to the memblock allocation
>> can exceed the bounds of the first logical memory block, since
>> ppc64_rma_size is ULONG_MAX and RTAS_INSTANTIATE_MAX is 1GB. (512MB is
>> a common size of the first memory block according to a small sample of
>> LPARs I have checked.) This leads to failures when user space invokes
>> an RTAS function that uses a work area, such as
>> ibm,configure-connector.
>> 
>> Alter the determination of the upper limit for rtas_rmo_buf's
>> allocation to consult the device tree directly, ensuring placement
>> within the RMA regardless of the MMU in use.
>
> Can we tie this with RTAS (which also needs to be in RMA) and simply add 
> extra 64K in prom_instantiate_rtas() and advertise this address 
> (ALIGH_UP(rtas-base + rtas-size, PAGE_SIZE)) to the user space? We do 
> not need this RMO area before that point.

Can you explain more about what advantage that would bring? I'm not
seeing it. It's a more significant change than what I've written
here. Would it interact well with kexec?

> And probably do the same with per-cpu RTAS argument structures mentioned 
> in the cover letter?

I don't think so, since those need to be allocated with the pacas and
limited to the maximum possible CPUs, which is discovered by the kernel
much later.

But maybe I misunderstand what you're suggesting.