From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48199) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eTnqI-0008Rg-Cg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:56:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eTnqH-00039Z-BF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:56:22 -0500 Message-ID: <5A423867.203@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 19:54:15 +0800 From: Shannon Zhao MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1513925567-5184-1-git-send-email-zhaoshenglong@huawei.com> <20171226114828.lz3s5qztk6rcm2vi@hawk.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20171226114828.lz3s5qztk6rcm2vi@hawk.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Virt: ACPI: fix qemu assert due to re-assigned table data address List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Andrew Jones Cc: qemu-arm@nongnu.org, peter.maydell@linaro.org, lersek@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 2017/12/26 19:48, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 02:52:47PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> acpi_data_push uses g_array_set_size to resize the memory size. If there is no >> enough contiguous memory, the address will be changed. If we use the old value, >> it will assert. >> qemu-kvm: hw/acpi/bios-linker-loader.c:214: bios_linker_loader_add_checksum: >> Assertion `start_offset < file->blob->len' failed.` >> >> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao >> --- >> hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 18 +++++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c >> index 3d78ff6..5901142 100644 >> --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c >> +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c >> @@ -453,6 +453,7 @@ build_spcr(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) >> AcpiSerialPortConsoleRedirection *spcr; >> const MemMapEntry *uart_memmap = &vms->memmap[VIRT_UART]; >> int irq = vms->irqmap[VIRT_UART] + ARM_SPI_BASE; >> + int spcr_start = table_data->len; >> >> spcr = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof(*spcr)); >> >> @@ -476,8 +477,8 @@ build_spcr(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) >> spcr->pci_device_id = 0xffff; /* PCI Device ID: not a PCI device */ >> spcr->pci_vendor_id = 0xffff; /* PCI Vendor ID: not a PCI device */ >> >> - build_header(linker, table_data, (void *)spcr, "SPCR", sizeof(*spcr), 2, >> - NULL, NULL); >> + build_header(linker, table_data, (void *)(table_data->data + spcr_start), >> + "SPCR", table_data->len - spcr_start, 2, NULL, NULL); >> } > > We don't need to change build_spcr(), as acpi_data_push() is only called > once, so spcr == new table_data->data + old table_data->len and new > table_data->len - spcr == sizeof(*spcr) (the size used in the only > acpi_data_push() call) > >> >> static void >> @@ -512,8 +513,8 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) >> mem_base += numa_info[i].node_mem; >> } >> >> - build_header(linker, table_data, (void *)srat, "SRAT", >> - table_data->len - srat_start, 3, NULL, NULL); >> + build_header(linker, table_data, (void *)(table_data->data + srat_start), >> + "SRAT", table_data->len - srat_start, 3, NULL, NULL); > > Yes, we need this fix, as there are many acpi_data_push() calls in this > function. I guess this was the table that triggered the assert. > >> } >> >> static void >> @@ -522,6 +523,7 @@ build_mcfg(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) >> AcpiTableMcfg *mcfg; >> const MemMapEntry *memmap = vms->memmap; >> int len = sizeof(*mcfg) + sizeof(mcfg->allocation[0]); >> + int mcfg_start = table_data->len; >> >> mcfg = acpi_data_push(table_data, len); >> mcfg->allocation[0].address = cpu_to_le64(memmap[VIRT_PCIE_ECAM].base); >> @@ -532,7 +534,8 @@ build_mcfg(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) >> mcfg->allocation[0].end_bus_number = (memmap[VIRT_PCIE_ECAM].size >> / PCIE_MMCFG_SIZE_MIN) - 1; >> >> - build_header(linker, table_data, (void *)mcfg, "MCFG", len, 1, NULL, NULL); >> + build_header(linker, table_data, (void *)(table_data->data + mcfg_start), >> + "MCFG", len, 1, NULL, NULL); >> } > > No need to change this one. > >> >> /* GTDT */ >> @@ -651,6 +654,7 @@ build_madt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) >> static void build_fadt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, >> VirtMachineState *vms, unsigned dsdt_tbl_offset) >> { >> + int fadt_start = table_data->len; >> AcpiFadtDescriptorRev5_1 *fadt = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof(*fadt)); >> unsigned xdsdt_entry_offset = (char *)&fadt->x_dsdt - table_data->data; >> uint16_t bootflags; >> @@ -681,8 +685,8 @@ static void build_fadt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, >> ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_FILE, xdsdt_entry_offset, sizeof(fadt->x_dsdt), >> ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_FILE, dsdt_tbl_offset); >> >> - build_header(linker, table_data, >> - (void *)fadt, "FACP", sizeof(*fadt), 5, NULL, NULL); >> + build_header(linker, table_data, (void *)(table_data->data + fadt_start), >> + "FACP", table_data->len - fadt_start, 5, NULL, NULL); >> } > > No need to change this one either. > >> >> /* DSDT */ >> -- >> 2.0.4 >> >> > > Please respin only changing the one that needs the fix. > Hi Andrew, Thanks for your comments. What you said is right that only the build_srat needs to be fixed but I thought we need to unify the style and avoid new issues if add some acpi_data_push in other functions in the future. Thanks, -- Shannon