Re: [RFC PATCH 15/31] efi_memory: add an event handler to update memory map

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3209 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:17:16PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 07.06.24 20:52, Sughosh Ganu wrote:
> > There are events that would be used to notify other interested modules
> > of any changes in available and occupied memory. This would happen
> > when a module allocates or reserves memory, or frees up memory. These
> > changes in memory map should be notified to other interested modules
> > so that the allocated memory does not get overwritten. Add an event
> > handler in the EFI memory module to update the EFI memory map
> > accordingly when such changes happen. As a consequence, any subsequent
> > memory request would honour the updated memory map and only available
> > memory would be allocated from.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >   lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >   1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c
> > index 435e580fb3..93244161b0 100644
> > --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c
> > +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c
> > @@ -73,6 +73,10 @@ struct efi_pool_allocation {
> >   #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(MEM_MAP_UPDATE_NOTIFY)
> >   extern bool is_addr_in_ram(uintptr_t addr);
> > 
> > +static efi_status_t __efi_add_memory_map_pg(u64 start, u64 pages,
> > +					    int memory_type,
> > +					    bool overlap_only_ram);
> > +
> >   static void efi_map_update_notify(u64 addr, u64 size, u8 op)
> >   {
> >   	struct event_efi_mem_map_update efi_map = {0};
> > @@ -84,6 +88,34 @@ static void efi_map_update_notify(u64 addr, u64 size, u8 op)
> >   	if (is_addr_in_ram((uintptr_t)addr))
> >   		event_notify(EVT_EFI_MEM_MAP_UPDATE, &efi_map, sizeof(efi_map));
> >   }
> > +
> > +static int lmb_mem_map_update_sync(void *ctx, struct event *event)
> > +{
> > +	u8 op;
> > +	u64 addr;
> > +	u64 pages;
> > +	efi_status_t status;
> > +	struct event_lmb_map_update *lmb_map = &event->data.lmb_map;
> > +
> > +	addr = (uintptr_t)map_sysmem(lmb_map->base, 0);
> > +	pages = efi_size_in_pages(lmb_map->size + (addr & EFI_PAGE_MASK));
> > +	op = lmb_map->op;
> > +	addr &= ~EFI_PAGE_MASK;
> > +
> > +	if (op != MAP_OP_RESERVE && op != MAP_OP_FREE) {
> > +		log_debug("Invalid map update op received (%d)\n", op);
> > +		return -1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	status = __efi_add_memory_map_pg(addr, pages,
> > +					 op == MAP_OP_FREE ?
> > +					 EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY :
> 
> This is dangerous. LMB might turn memory that is marked as
> EfiReservedMemory which the OS must respect into EfiBootServicesData
> which the OS may discard.
> 
> E.g. initr_lmb() is being called after efi_memory_init().
> 
> Getting all cases of synchronization properly tested seems very hard to
> me. Everything would be much easier if we had only a single memory
> management system.

Yes, Sughosh is working on the single memory reservation system for
everyone to use. This pairs with the single memory allocation system
(malloc) that we have. Parts of the code base that aren't keeping these
systems up to date / obeying their results need to be corrected.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]