From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: "Nicolai Stange" <nicstange@gmail.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Matt Fleming" <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"Mika Penttilä" <mika.penttila@nextfour.com>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Dave Young" <dyoung@redhat.com>,
"linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] efi: efi_mem_reserve(): don't reserve through memblock after mm_init()
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 18:46:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87showm682.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu_BnSf_LMsWHTeFaTak8iV1Cwex7WBEsufwYRrBzY8KzQ@mail.gmail.com> (Ard Biesheuvel's message of "Fri, 6 Jan 2017 16:41:41 +0000")
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> writes:
> On 6 January 2017 at 13:02, Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 5 January 2017 at 12:51, Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Before invoking the arch specific handler, efi_mem_reserve() reserves
>>>> the given memory region through memblock.
>>>>
>>>> efi_mem_reserve() can get called after mm_init() though -- through
>>>> efi_bgrt_init(), for example. After mm_init(), memblock is dead and should
>>>> not be used anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Let efi_mem_reserve() check whether memblock is dead and not do the
>>>> reservation if so. Emit a warning from the generic efi_arch mem_reserve()
>>>> in this case: if the architecture doesn't provide any other means of
>>>> registering the region as reserved, the operation would be a nop.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 4bc9f92e64c8 ("x86/efi-bgrt: Use efi_mem_reserve() to avoid copying image data")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Applicable to next-20170105.
>>>> No changes to v2.
>>>> Boot-tested on x86_64.
>>>>
>>>> drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 7 +++++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
>>>> index 92914801e388..158a8df2f4af 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
>>>> @@ -403,7 +403,10 @@ u64 __init efi_mem_desc_end(efi_memory_desc_t *md)
>>>> return end;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -void __init __weak efi_arch_mem_reserve(phys_addr_t addr, u64 size) {}
>>>> +void __init __weak efi_arch_mem_reserve(phys_addr_t addr, u64 size)
>>>> +{
>>>> + WARN(slab_is_available(), "efi_mem_reserve() has no effect");
>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> /**
>>>> * efi_mem_reserve - Reserve an EFI memory region
>>>> @@ -419,7 +422,7 @@ void __init __weak efi_arch_mem_reserve(phys_addr_t addr, u64 size) {}
>>>> */
>>>> void __init efi_mem_reserve(phys_addr_t addr, u64 size)
>>>> {
>>>> - if (!memblock_is_region_reserved(addr, size))
>>>> + if (!slab_is_available() && !memblock_is_region_reserved(addr, size))
>>>> memblock_reserve(addr, size);
>>>>
>>
>> More context:
>>
>> /*
>> * Some architectures (x86) reserve all boot services ranges
>> * until efi_free_boot_services() because of buggy firmware
>> * implementations. This means the above memblock_reserve() is
>> * superfluous on x86 and instead what it needs to do is
>> * ensure the @start, @size is not freed.
>> */
>> efi_arch_mem_reserve(addr, size);
>> }
>>
>>
>>> I share Dave's concern: on x86, this will silently ignore the
>>> reservation if slab_is_available() returns true,
>>
>> AFAICS, x86 has got an efi_arch_mem_reserve() which doesn't ignore the
>> reservation at any stage.
>>
>
> Thanks for the clarification. But my concern is whether changing the
> EFI memory map is going to have any effect at this stage, i.e., after
> slab_is_available() returns true: haven't we already communicated to
> the kernel which RAM regions it may allocate from? How does it know
> the memory map has changed, and how do we ensure that it has not
> already allocated from the region we are reserving here?
Ah, I see what you mean. I think it works like this on x86:
All EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_* regions as reported by the firmware are marked
as reserved at memblock unconditionally through the early setup_arch()
=> efi_reserve_boot_services(). This prevents these from getting handed
over to the "normal" kernel MM until efi_free_boot_services()
gets called later on. The latter frees these EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_* regions,
but only if their EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME flag is not set.
Now, efi_arch_mem_reserve() basically just sets the EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME
flag, allowing the given region to survive beyond efi_free_boot_services().
Corrolary 1: any efi_mem_reserve() after efi_free_boot_services wouldn't
have any effect.
Corollary 2: anything handed to efi_arch_mem_reserve() must live within
some memory region which had been reported by firmware already.
Indeed, at its very top, there is
if (efi_mem_desc_lookup(addr, &md)) {
pr_err("Failed to lookup EFI memory descriptor for %pa\n", &addr);
return;
}
if (addr + size > md.phys_addr + (md.num_pages << EFI_PAGE_SHIFT)) {
pr_err("Region spans EFI memory descriptors, %pa\n", &addr);
return;
}
For further information, the comment at the x86's efi_arch_mem_reserve()
might be helpful.
I hope this is correct and helps.
Thanks,
Nicolai
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-06 17:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-05 12:51 [PATCH v3 1/2] x86/efi: don't allocate memmap through memblock after mm_init() Nicolai Stange
2017-01-05 12:51 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] efi: efi_mem_reserve(): don't reserve " Nicolai Stange
2017-01-06 8:35 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-06 13:02 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-06 16:41 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-06 17:46 ` Nicolai Stange [this message]
2017-01-06 19:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-08 0:24 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-09 13:07 ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-09 13:00 ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-05 21:30 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] x86/efi: don't allocate memmap " Dan Williams
2017-01-09 6:43 ` [tip:efi/urgent] x86/efi: Don't " tip-bot for Nicolai Stange
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=87showm682.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=nicstange@gmail.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mika.penttila@nextfour.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.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