From: matt@codeblueprint.co.uk (Matt Fleming)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] efi: add 'offset' param to efi_low_alloc()
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:01:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150730140144.GH2725@codeblueprint.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1438164259-14470-2-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
On Wed, 29 Jul, at 12:04:18PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> In some cases, e.g., when allocating memory for the arm64 kernel,
> we need memory at a certain offset from an aligned boundary. So add
> an offset parameter to efi_low_alloc(), and update the existing
> callers to pass zero by default.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/efi-stub.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c | 4 ++--
> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efi-stub-helper.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
> include/linux/efi.h | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
[...]
> @@ -269,10 +269,19 @@ efi_status_t efi_low_alloc(efi_system_table_t *sys_table_arg,
> * checks pointers against NULL. Skip the first 8
> * bytes so we start at a nice even number.
> */
> - if (start == 0x0)
> + if (start + offset == 0x0)
> start += 8;
>
> - start = round_up(start, align);
> + /*
> + * Check if the offset exceeds the misalignment of this region.
> + * In that case, we can round down instead of up, and the
> + * resulting start value will be correctly aligned and still
> + * point past the start of the region.
> + */
> + if (offset >= (start & (align - 1)))
> + start = round_down(start, align) + offset;
> + else
> + start = round_up(start, align) + offset;
> if ((start + size) > end)
> continue;
Aha, now I see what you mean. Thanks for doing this Ard, these are much
more polished than what I was expecting.
I'm gonna have to NAK this because it's just too much of a special case
to support directly in efi_low_alloc(), which I think was the exact
point that you made originally, and which I was too tired/dumb to
understand. Sorry.
In particular, the fact that you can use the offset argument to violate
the requested alignment seems like it would trip up most users.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-30 14:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-29 10:04 [PATCH 0/2] arm64/efi: fix kernel allocation at base of DRAM Ard Biesheuvel
2015-07-29 10:04 ` [PATCH 1/2] efi: add 'offset' param to efi_low_alloc() Ard Biesheuvel
2015-07-30 14:01 ` Matt Fleming [this message]
2015-07-30 14:06 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-07-29 10:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64/efi: use efi_low_alloc() with offset to allocate kernel Ard Biesheuvel
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=20150730140144.GH2725@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--to=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).