Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 25/27] arm64: Add support for efi in Makefile

Nikos Nikoleris
2022-07-15T14:00:18Z

Hi,

On 13/07/2022 10:17, Nikos Nikoleris wrote:
> On 13/07/2022 09:46, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 09:50:51PM +0100, Nikos Nikoleris wrote:
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> On 12/07/2022 14:39, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:03:22AM +0100, Nikos Nikoleris wrote:
>>>>> Users can now build kvm-unit-tests as efi apps by supplying an extra
>>>>> argument when invoking configure:
>>>>>
>>>>> $> ./configure --enable-efi
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch is based on an earlier version by
>>>>> Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikos Nikoleris <nikos.nikoleris@arm.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> configure | 15 ++++++++++++---
>>>>> arm/Makefile.arm | 6 ++++++
>>>>> arm/Makefile.arm64 | 18 ++++++++++++++----
>>>>> arm/Makefile.common | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>>> 4 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
>>>>> index 5b7daac..2ff9881 100755
>>>>> --- a/configure
>>>>> +++ b/configure
>>>> [..]
>>>>> @@ -218,6 +223,10 @@ else
>>>>> echo "arm64 doesn't support page size of $page_size"
>>>>> usage
>>>>> fi
>>>>> + if [ "$efi" = 'y' ] && [ "$page_size" != "4096" ]; then
>>>>> + echo "efi must use 4K pages"
>>>>> + exit 1
>>>>
>>>> Why this restriction?
>>>>
>>>> The Makefile compiles kvm-unit-tests to run as an UEFI app, it doesn't
>>>> compile UEFI itself. As far as I can tell, UEFI is designed to run payloads
>>>> with larger page size (it would be pretty silly to not be able to boot a
>>>> kernel built for 16k or 64k pages with UEFI).
>>>>
>>>> Is there some limitation that I'm missing?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Technically, we could allow 16k or 64k granules. But to do that we would
>>> have to handle cases where the memory map we get from EFI cannot be remapped
>>> with the new granules. For example, a region might be 12kB and mapping it
>>> with 16k or 64k granules without moving it is impossible.
>>
>> Hm... From UEFI Specification, Version 2.8, page 35:
>>
>> "The ARM architecture allows mapping pages at a variety of granularities,
>> including 4KiB and 64KiB. If a 64KiB physical page contains any 4KiB page
>> with any of the following types listed below, then all 4KiB pages in the
>> 64KiB page must use identical ARM Memory Page Attributes (as described in
>> Table 7):
>>
>> — EfiRuntimeServicesCode
>> — EfiRuntimeServicesData
>> — EfiReserved
>> — EfiACPIMemoryNVS
>>
>> Mixed attribute mappings within a larger page are not allowed.
>>
>> Note: This constraint allows a 64K paged based Operating System to safely
>> map runtime services memory."
>>
>> Looking at Table 30. Memory Type Usage after ExitBootServices(), on page
>> 160 (I am going to assume that EfiReservedMemoryType is the same as
>> EfiReserved), the only region that is required to be mapped for runtime
>> services, but isn't mentioned above, is EfiPalCode. The bit about mixed
>> attribute mappings within a larger page not being allowed makes me think
>> that EfiPalCode can be mapped even if isn't mapped at the start of a 64KiB
>> page, as no other memory type can be withing a 64KiB granule. What do you
>> think?
>>
> I wasn't aware of this. So from your explanation, it sounds like if we
> have multiple regions in any 64k aligned block then it should be
> possible to map them all using the same mapping?
>
> I'll check if we can add rely on this and add some assertions.
>

I've been looking into this and it doesn't seem very straightforward.
For example, in my system I run into the case where the first two
regions as we get them from EFI are:

Region 0x40000000 - 0x48386000 type: EfiConventionalMemory
Region 0x48386000 - 0x48450000 type: EfiLoaderCode

If we map these two regions in a system with 16k granule that uses
identity mapping (virtual address = physical address), the end of the
1st region overlaps with the start of the 2nd region for the range
0x48380000 - 0x48390000. While the 2 regions will have the same memory
type, they need to have different permissions. We map
EfiConventionalMemory as read/write but EfiLoaderCode as read only (this
is to allow shared code between EL0 and EL1).

>> There's no pressing need to have support for all page sizes, from my point
>> of view, it's fine if it's missing from the initial UEFI support. But I
>> would appreciate a comment in the code or an explanation in the commit
>> message (or both), because it looks very arbitrary as it is right now. At
>> the very least this will serve as a nice reminder of what still needs to be
>> done for full UEFI support.
>
> If it's just removing the check in configure and adding assertions in
> lib/arm/setup.c it shouldn't be a big problem.
>

It seems that dealing with this limitation is not straightforward and
unless I am missing something I would leave is as future work. What do
you think?

Thanks,

Nikos