| Message ID | 20180314082941.GM25863@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 14 March 2018 at 08:29, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> wrote: > In the last couples of months, there were some problems reported [1],[2] > around arm64 kexec/kdump. Where those phenomenon look different, > the root cause would be that kexec/kdump doesn't take into account > crucial "reserved" regions of system memory and unintentionally corrupts > them. > > Given that kexec-tools looks for all the information by seeking the file, > /proc/iomem, the first step to address said problems is to expand this file's > format so that it will have enough information about system memory and > its usage. > > Attached is my experimental code: With this patch applied, /proc/iomem sees > something like the below: > > (format A) > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > 41040000-411e8fff : Kernel data > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > 58590000-585effff : EFI Resources > 58700000-5871ffff : EFI Resources > 58720000-58b5ffff : System RAM > 58720000-58b5ffff : EFI Resources > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > 58b61018-58b61947 : EFI Memory Map > 59a7b118-59a7b667 : EFI Configuration Tables > 5be40000-5becffff : System RAM <== (A-1) > 5be40000-5becffff : EFI Resources > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > 5bee0000-5bffffff : System RAM > 5bee0000-5bffffff : EFI Resources > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > Meanwhile, the workaround I suggested in [3] gave us a simpler view: > > (format B) > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > 58590000-585effff : reserved > 58700000-5871ffff : reserved > 58720000-58b5ffff : reserved > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > 58b61000-58b61fff : reserved > 59a7b318-59a7b867 : reserved > 5be40000-5becffff : reserved <== (B-1) > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > 5bee0000-5bffffff : reserved > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > 5ec00000-5edfffff : reserved > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > Here all the regions to be protected are named just "reserved" whether > they are NOMAP regions or simply-memblock_reserve'd. They are not very > useful for anything but kexec/kdump which knows what they mean. > > Alternatively, we may want to give them more specific names, based on > related efi memory map descriptors and else, that will characterize > their contents: > > (format C) > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > 58590000-585effff : ACPI Reclaim Memory > 58700000-5871ffff : ACPI Reclaim Memory > 58720000-58b5ffff : System RAM > 58720000-5878ffff : Runtime Data > 58790000-587dffff : Runtime Code > 587e0000-5882ffff : Runtime Data > 58830000-5887ffff : Runtime Code > 58880000-588cffff : Runtime Data > 588d0000-5891ffff : Runtime Code > 58920000-5896ffff : Runtime Data > 58970000-589bffff : Runtime Code > 589c0000-58a5ffff : Runtime Data > 58a60000-58abffff : Runtime Code > 58ac0000-58b0ffff : Runtime Data > 58b10000-58b5ffff : Runtime Code > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > 58b61000-58b61fff : EFI Memory Map > 59a7b118-59a7b667 : EFI Memory Attributes Table > 5be40000-5becffff : System RAM > 5be40000-5becffff : Runtime Code > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > 5bee0000-5bffffff : System RAM > 5bee0000-5bffffff : Runtime Data > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > I once created a patch for this format, but it looks quite noisy and > names are a sort of mixture of memory attributes( ACPI Reclaim memory, > Conventional Memory, Persistent Memory etc.) vs. > function/usages ([Loader|Boot Service|Runtime] Code/Data). > (As a matter of fact, (C-1) consists of various ACPI tables.) > Anyhow, they seem not so useful for most of other applications. > > Those observations lead to format A, where some entries with the same > attributes are squeezed into a single entry under a simple name if they > are neighbouring. > > > So my questions here are: > > 1. Which format, A, B, or C, is the most appropriate for the moment? > or any other suggestions? > I think some variant of B should be sufficient. The only meaningful distinction between these reserved regions at a general level is whether they are NOMAP or not, so perhaps we can incorporate that. As for identifying things like EFI configuration tables: this is a moving target, and we also define our own config tables for the TPM log, screeninfo on ARM etc. Also, for EFI memory types, you can boot with efi=debug and look at the entire memory map. So I think adding all that information may be overkill. > Currently, there is a inconsistent view between (A) and the mainline's: > see (A-1) and (B-1). If this is really a matter, I can fix it. > Kexec-tools can be easily modified to accept both formats, though. > > > 2. How should we determine which regions be exported in /proc/iomem? > > a. Trust all the memblock_reserve'd regions as my previous patch [3] does. > > As I said, it's a kind of "overkill." Some of regions, say fdt, are > not required to be preserved across kexec. > I don't think there is anything wrong with listing all memblock_reserve()'d regions here, even if kexec has other means of ensuring that they are not touched. But as I said, I think it would be useful to distinguish them from NOMAP regions (even if the nesting below System RAM already shows that as well) > b. List regions separately and exhaustively later on at a single point > as my patch attached does. > > I'm afraid of any possibility that some regions may be doubly counted, > one from efi memory map search and another from other efi/acpi code > (various type of "tables" in most cases). > > c. Expand efi_mem_reserve() with an argument of "resource descriptor" and > replace memblock_reserve() in efi code wherever necessary so as to > maintain an export list. > > efi_mem_reserve() was first introduced for specific needs at kexec > on x86, but I believe that its coverage over efi code is far from perfect. > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-November/541831.html > [2] http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1802.2/06745.html > [3] http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1803.0/04658.html > http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1803.0/04659.html > > -Takahiro AKASHI > > ===8<=== > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > index 30ad2f085d1f..feda5cbdc6bf 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > @@ -214,13 +214,8 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) > > for_each_memblock(memory, region) { > res = alloc_bootmem_low(sizeof(*res)); > - if (memblock_is_nomap(region)) { > - res->name = "reserved"; > - res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM; > - } else { > - res->name = "System RAM"; > - res->flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; > - } > + res->name = "System RAM"; > + res->flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; > res->start = __pfn_to_phys(memblock_region_memory_base_pfn(region)); > res->end = __pfn_to_phys(memblock_region_memory_end_pfn(region)) - 1; > > @@ -239,6 +234,9 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) > request_resource(res, &crashk_res); > #endif > } > + > + /* Add firmware-reserved memory */ > + efi_arch_request_resources(); > } > > u64 __cpu_logical_map[NR_CPUS] = { [0 ... NR_CPUS-1] = INVALID_HWID }; > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > index 80d1a885def5..308143e69db4 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "efi: " fmt > > +#include <linux/bootmem.h> > #include <linux/efi.h> > #include <linux/init.h> > +#include <linux/ioport.h> > #include <linux/memblock.h> > #include <linux/mm_types.h> > #include <linux/of.h> > @@ -280,3 +282,97 @@ static int __init register_gop_device(void) > return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(pd); > } > subsys_initcall(register_gop_device); > + > +static unsigned long __init efi_memattr_to_iores_type(u64 addr) > +{ > + if (efi_mem_attributes(addr) & > + (EFI_MEMORY_WB|EFI_MEMORY_WT|EFI_MEMORY_WC)) > + return IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM; > + else > + return IORESOURCE_MEM; > +} > + > +static unsigned long __init efi_type_to_iores_desc(u64 addr) > +{ > + /* TODO */ > + return IORES_DESC_NONE; > +} > + > +static struct resource * __init _efi_arch_request_resource(u64 start, u64 end, > + char *name, struct resource *prev) > +{ > + struct resource *conflict, *res; > + > + res = alloc_bootmem_low(sizeof(*res)); > + > + res->start = start; > + res->end = end; > + res->flags = efi_memattr_to_iores_type(res->start); > + res->desc = efi_type_to_iores_desc(res->start); > + res->name = name; > + > + conflict = request_resource_conflict(&iomem_resource, res); > + if (conflict) { > + if (prev && (prev->parent == conflict) && > + ((prev->end + 1) == start)) { > + /* merge consecutive regions */ > + adjust_resource(prev, prev->start, > + end - prev->start + 1); > + free_bootmem((unsigned long)res, sizeof(*res)); > + res = prev; > + } else > + insert_resource(conflict, res); > + } > + > + return res; > +} > + > +/* Kexec expects those resources to be preserved */ > +void __init efi_arch_request_resources(void) > +{ > + struct resource *res = NULL; > + efi_memory_desc_t *md; > + u64 paddr, npages, size; > + > + /* EFI Memory Map */ > + /* FIXME */ > + _efi_arch_request_resource(efi.memmap.phys_map, > + efi.memmap.phys_map > + + efi.memmap.desc_size * efi.memmap.nr_map - 1, > + "EFI Memory Map", res); > + > + /* generic EFI Configuration Tables */ > + efi_request_config_table_resources(_efi_arch_request_resource); > + > + /* architecture-specifc Configuration Tables */ > + if (screen_info.lfb_size) > + _efi_arch_request_resource(screen_info.lfb_base, > + screen_info.lfb_base + screen_info.lfb_size - 1, > + "EFI Screen Info Table", res); > + > + /* architecture-specific EFI resources */ > + /* FIXME */ > + efi_memmap_install(efi.memmap.phys_map, efi.memmap.nr_map); > + > + res = NULL; > + for_each_efi_memory_desc(md) { > + paddr = md->phys_addr; > + npages = md->num_pages; > + > + memrange_efi_to_native(&paddr, &npages); > + size = npages << PAGE_SHIFT; > + > + if (is_memory(md)) { > + if (!is_usable_memory(md)) > + res = _efi_arch_request_resource(paddr, > + paddr + size - 1, > + "EFI Resources", res); > + > + if (md->type == EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY) > + res = _efi_arch_request_resource(paddr, > + paddr + size - 1, > + "EFI Resources", res); > + } > + } > + efi_memmap_unmap(); > +} > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > index cd42f66a7c85..b13c9461278b 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > @@ -603,6 +603,33 @@ int __init efi_config_init(efi_config_table_type_t *arch_tables) > return ret; > } > > +void __init efi_request_config_table_resources(struct resource *(*fn)(u64 start, > + u64 end, char *name, struct resource *prev)) > +{ > + struct resource *prev = NULL; > + char *name = "EFI Configuration Tables"; > + > + if (efi.config_table_size) > + prev = fn(efi.config_table, > + efi.config_table + efi.config_table_size - 1, name, > + prev); > + > + if (efi.mem_attr_table_size) > + prev = fn(efi.mem_attr_table, > + efi.mem_attr_table + efi.mem_attr_table_size - 1, name, > + prev); > + > + if (efi.esrt_size) > + prev = fn(efi.esrt, efi.esrt + efi.esrt_size - 1, name, prev); > + > + if (efi.tpm_log_size) > + prev = fn(efi.tpm_log, efi.tpm_log + efi.tpm_log_size - 1, name, > + prev); > + > + > + /* TODO: BGRT */ > +} > + > #ifdef CONFIG_EFI_VARS_MODULE > static int __init efi_load_efivars(void) > { > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c > index c47e0c6ec00f..61f66c139afb 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c > @@ -330,6 +330,7 @@ void __init efi_esrt_init(void) > > esrt_data = (phys_addr_t)efi.esrt; > esrt_data_size = size; > + efi.esrt_size = size; > > end = esrt_data + size; > pr_info("Reserving ESRT space from %pa to %pa.\n", &esrt_data, &end); > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c > index 8986757eafaf..dc2c7608793a 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ int __init efi_memattr_init(void) > } > > tbl_size = sizeof(*tbl) + tbl->num_entries * tbl->desc_size; > + efi.mem_attr_table_size = tbl_size; > memblock_reserve(efi.mem_attr_table, tbl_size); > set_bit(EFI_MEM_ATTR, &efi.flags); > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c > index 0cbeb3d46b18..53cfb12513fa 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ int __init efi_tpm_eventlog_init(void) > } > > tbl_size = sizeof(*log_tbl) + log_tbl->size; > + efi.tpm_log_size = tbl_size; > memblock_reserve(efi.tpm_log, tbl_size); > early_memunmap(log_tbl, sizeof(*log_tbl)); > return 0; > diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h > index f5083aa72eae..9c3f8d284b36 100644 > --- a/include/linux/efi.h > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h > @@ -942,11 +942,15 @@ extern struct efi { > unsigned long fw_vendor; /* fw_vendor */ > unsigned long runtime; /* runtime table */ > unsigned long config_table; /* config tables */ > + unsigned long config_table_size; > unsigned long esrt; /* ESRT table */ > + unsigned long esrt_size; > unsigned long properties_table; /* properties table */ > unsigned long mem_attr_table; /* memory attributes table */ > + unsigned long mem_attr_table_size; > unsigned long rng_seed; /* UEFI firmware random seed */ > unsigned long tpm_log; /* TPM2 Event Log table */ > + unsigned long tpm_log_size; > efi_get_time_t *get_time; > efi_set_time_t *set_time; > efi_get_wakeup_time_t *get_wakeup_time; > @@ -980,6 +984,9 @@ efi_guid_to_str(efi_guid_t *guid, char *out) > } > > extern void efi_init (void); > +extern void efi_arch_request_resources(void); > +extern void efi_request_config_table_resources(struct resource * > + (*fn)(u64 start, u64 end, char *name, struct resource *prev)); > extern void *efi_get_pal_addr (void); > extern void efi_map_pal_code (void); > extern void efi_memmap_walk (efi_freemem_callback_t callback, void *arg);
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:39:23AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 14 March 2018 at 08:29, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> wrote: > > In the last couples of months, there were some problems reported [1],[2] > > around arm64 kexec/kdump. Where those phenomenon look different, > > the root cause would be that kexec/kdump doesn't take into account > > crucial "reserved" regions of system memory and unintentionally corrupts > > them. > > > > Given that kexec-tools looks for all the information by seeking the file, > > /proc/iomem, the first step to address said problems is to expand this file's > > format so that it will have enough information about system memory and > > its usage. > > > > Attached is my experimental code: With this patch applied, /proc/iomem sees > > something like the below: > > > > (format A) > > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > > 41040000-411e8fff : Kernel data > > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > > 58590000-585effff : EFI Resources > > 58700000-5871ffff : EFI Resources > > 58720000-58b5ffff : System RAM > > 58720000-58b5ffff : EFI Resources > > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > > 58b61018-58b61947 : EFI Memory Map > > 59a7b118-59a7b667 : EFI Configuration Tables > > 5be40000-5becffff : System RAM <== (A-1) > > 5be40000-5becffff : EFI Resources > > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > > 5bee0000-5bffffff : System RAM > > 5bee0000-5bffffff : EFI Resources > > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > > > Meanwhile, the workaround I suggested in [3] gave us a simpler view: > > > > (format B) > > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > > 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data > > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > > 58590000-585effff : reserved > > 58700000-5871ffff : reserved > > 58720000-58b5ffff : reserved > > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > > 58b61000-58b61fff : reserved > > 59a7b318-59a7b867 : reserved > > 5be40000-5becffff : reserved <== (B-1) > > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > > 5bee0000-5bffffff : reserved > > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > > 5ec00000-5edfffff : reserved > > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > > > Here all the regions to be protected are named just "reserved" whether > > they are NOMAP regions or simply-memblock_reserve'd. They are not very > > useful for anything but kexec/kdump which knows what they mean. > > > > Alternatively, we may want to give them more specific names, based on > > related efi memory map descriptors and else, that will characterize > > their contents: > > > > (format C) > > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > > 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data > > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > > 58590000-585effff : ACPI Reclaim Memory > > 58700000-5871ffff : ACPI Reclaim Memory > > 58720000-58b5ffff : System RAM > > 58720000-5878ffff : Runtime Data > > 58790000-587dffff : Runtime Code > > 587e0000-5882ffff : Runtime Data > > 58830000-5887ffff : Runtime Code > > 58880000-588cffff : Runtime Data > > 588d0000-5891ffff : Runtime Code > > 58920000-5896ffff : Runtime Data > > 58970000-589bffff : Runtime Code > > 589c0000-58a5ffff : Runtime Data > > 58a60000-58abffff : Runtime Code > > 58ac0000-58b0ffff : Runtime Data > > 58b10000-58b5ffff : Runtime Code > > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > > 58b61000-58b61fff : EFI Memory Map > > 59a7b118-59a7b667 : EFI Memory Attributes Table > > 5be40000-5becffff : System RAM > > 5be40000-5becffff : Runtime Code > > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > > 5bee0000-5bffffff : System RAM > > 5bee0000-5bffffff : Runtime Data > > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > > > I once created a patch for this format, but it looks quite noisy and > > names are a sort of mixture of memory attributes( ACPI Reclaim memory, > > Conventional Memory, Persistent Memory etc.) vs. > > function/usages ([Loader|Boot Service|Runtime] Code/Data). > > (As a matter of fact, (C-1) consists of various ACPI tables.) > > Anyhow, they seem not so useful for most of other applications. > > > > Those observations lead to format A, where some entries with the same > > attributes are squeezed into a single entry under a simple name if they > > are neighbouring. > > > > > > So my questions here are: > > > > 1. Which format, A, B, or C, is the most appropriate for the moment? > > or any other suggestions? > > > > I think some variant of B should be sufficient. The only meaningful > distinction between these reserved regions at a general level is > whether they are NOMAP or not, so perhaps we can incorporate that. I would definitely like to give your opinion the first priority, but also hear from other guys. Can you tell my why you think that the distinction, NOMAP or not, is meaningful? > As for identifying things like EFI configuration tables: this is a > moving target, and we also define our own config tables for the TPM > log, screeninfo on ARM etc. Also, for EFI memory types, you can boot > with efi=debug and look at the entire memory map. So I think adding > all that information may be overkill. No doubt I agree. The reason why I gave specific names to EFI configuration tables is that all such tables are unambiguously listed in 'efi' structure, while "screen info" seems to be arm-specific. As for EFI memory types, I admit that they are inadequate for a source of naming. Nevertheless, I still have a sense that "reserved" sounds sloppy :) > > Currently, there is a inconsistent view between (A) and the mainline's: > > see (A-1) and (B-1). If this is really a matter, I can fix it. > > Kexec-tools can be easily modified to accept both formats, though. > > > > > > 2. How should we determine which regions be exported in /proc/iomem? > > > > a. Trust all the memblock_reserve'd regions as my previous patch [3] does. > > > > As I said, it's a kind of "overkill." Some of regions, say fdt, are > > not required to be preserved across kexec. > > > > I don't think there is anything wrong with listing all > memblock_reserve()'d regions here, even if kexec has other means of > ensuring that they are not touched. I initially thought that one downside in this approach is that we might not able to re-use a reserved region for fdt, as well as others also dynamically reserved by "/reserved-memory/" nodes, after kexec and that it would end up more or less a memory leak eventually after iterating kexec()'s. But after thinking twice, I now don't believe it is a problem anymore. In kexec case, we won't have to hand over a list of reserved regions to secondary kernel. Kdump, on the other hand, will be triggered only once for its nature anyway. > But as I said, I think it would be > useful to distinguish them from NOMAP regions (even if the nesting > below System RAM already shows that as well) Something like "reserved (no map)"? -Takahiro AKASHI > > > b. List regions separately and exhaustively later on at a single point > > as my patch attached does. > > > > I'm afraid of any possibility that some regions may be doubly counted, > > one from efi memory map search and another from other efi/acpi code > > (various type of "tables" in most cases). > > > > c. Expand efi_mem_reserve() with an argument of "resource descriptor" and > > replace memblock_reserve() in efi code wherever necessary so as to > > maintain an export list. > > > > efi_mem_reserve() was first introduced for specific needs at kexec > > on x86, but I believe that its coverage over efi code is far from perfect. > > > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-November/541831.html > > [2] http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1802.2/06745.html > > [3] http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1803.0/04658.html > > http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1803.0/04659.html > > > > -Takahiro AKASHI > > > > ===8<=== > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > index 30ad2f085d1f..feda5cbdc6bf 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > @@ -214,13 +214,8 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) > > > > for_each_memblock(memory, region) { > > res = alloc_bootmem_low(sizeof(*res)); > > - if (memblock_is_nomap(region)) { > > - res->name = "reserved"; > > - res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM; > > - } else { > > - res->name = "System RAM"; > > - res->flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; > > - } > > + res->name = "System RAM"; > > + res->flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; > > res->start = __pfn_to_phys(memblock_region_memory_base_pfn(region)); > > res->end = __pfn_to_phys(memblock_region_memory_end_pfn(region)) - 1; > > > > @@ -239,6 +234,9 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) > > request_resource(res, &crashk_res); > > #endif > > } > > + > > + /* Add firmware-reserved memory */ > > + efi_arch_request_resources(); > > } > > > > u64 __cpu_logical_map[NR_CPUS] = { [0 ... NR_CPUS-1] = INVALID_HWID }; > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > > index 80d1a885def5..308143e69db4 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > > @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ > > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "efi: " fmt > > > > +#include <linux/bootmem.h> > > #include <linux/efi.h> > > #include <linux/init.h> > > +#include <linux/ioport.h> > > #include <linux/memblock.h> > > #include <linux/mm_types.h> > > #include <linux/of.h> > > @@ -280,3 +282,97 @@ static int __init register_gop_device(void) > > return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(pd); > > } > > subsys_initcall(register_gop_device); > > + > > +static unsigned long __init efi_memattr_to_iores_type(u64 addr) > > +{ > > + if (efi_mem_attributes(addr) & > > + (EFI_MEMORY_WB|EFI_MEMORY_WT|EFI_MEMORY_WC)) > > + return IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM; > > + else > > + return IORESOURCE_MEM; > > +} > > + > > +static unsigned long __init efi_type_to_iores_desc(u64 addr) > > +{ > > + /* TODO */ > > + return IORES_DESC_NONE; > > +} > > + > > +static struct resource * __init _efi_arch_request_resource(u64 start, u64 end, > > + char *name, struct resource *prev) > > +{ > > + struct resource *conflict, *res; > > + > > + res = alloc_bootmem_low(sizeof(*res)); > > + > > + res->start = start; > > + res->end = end; > > + res->flags = efi_memattr_to_iores_type(res->start); > > + res->desc = efi_type_to_iores_desc(res->start); > > + res->name = name; > > + > > + conflict = request_resource_conflict(&iomem_resource, res); > > + if (conflict) { > > + if (prev && (prev->parent == conflict) && > > + ((prev->end + 1) == start)) { > > + /* merge consecutive regions */ > > + adjust_resource(prev, prev->start, > > + end - prev->start + 1); > > + free_bootmem((unsigned long)res, sizeof(*res)); > > + res = prev; > > + } else > > + insert_resource(conflict, res); > > + } > > + > > + return res; > > +} > > + > > +/* Kexec expects those resources to be preserved */ > > +void __init efi_arch_request_resources(void) > > +{ > > + struct resource *res = NULL; > > + efi_memory_desc_t *md; > > + u64 paddr, npages, size; > > + > > + /* EFI Memory Map */ > > + /* FIXME */ > > + _efi_arch_request_resource(efi.memmap.phys_map, > > + efi.memmap.phys_map > > + + efi.memmap.desc_size * efi.memmap.nr_map - 1, > > + "EFI Memory Map", res); > > + > > + /* generic EFI Configuration Tables */ > > + efi_request_config_table_resources(_efi_arch_request_resource); > > + > > + /* architecture-specifc Configuration Tables */ > > + if (screen_info.lfb_size) > > + _efi_arch_request_resource(screen_info.lfb_base, > > + screen_info.lfb_base + screen_info.lfb_size - 1, > > + "EFI Screen Info Table", res); > > + > > + /* architecture-specific EFI resources */ > > + /* FIXME */ > > + efi_memmap_install(efi.memmap.phys_map, efi.memmap.nr_map); > > + > > + res = NULL; > > + for_each_efi_memory_desc(md) { > > + paddr = md->phys_addr; > > + npages = md->num_pages; > > + > > + memrange_efi_to_native(&paddr, &npages); > > + size = npages << PAGE_SHIFT; > > + > > + if (is_memory(md)) { > > + if (!is_usable_memory(md)) > > + res = _efi_arch_request_resource(paddr, > > + paddr + size - 1, > > + "EFI Resources", res); > > + > > + if (md->type == EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY) > > + res = _efi_arch_request_resource(paddr, > > + paddr + size - 1, > > + "EFI Resources", res); > > + } > > + } > > + efi_memmap_unmap(); > > +} > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > > index cd42f66a7c85..b13c9461278b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > > @@ -603,6 +603,33 @@ int __init efi_config_init(efi_config_table_type_t *arch_tables) > > return ret; > > } > > > > +void __init efi_request_config_table_resources(struct resource *(*fn)(u64 start, > > + u64 end, char *name, struct resource *prev)) > > +{ > > + struct resource *prev = NULL; > > + char *name = "EFI Configuration Tables"; > > + > > + if (efi.config_table_size) > > + prev = fn(efi.config_table, > > + efi.config_table + efi.config_table_size - 1, name, > > + prev); > > + > > + if (efi.mem_attr_table_size) > > + prev = fn(efi.mem_attr_table, > > + efi.mem_attr_table + efi.mem_attr_table_size - 1, name, > > + prev); > > + > > + if (efi.esrt_size) > > + prev = fn(efi.esrt, efi.esrt + efi.esrt_size - 1, name, prev); > > + > > + if (efi.tpm_log_size) > > + prev = fn(efi.tpm_log, efi.tpm_log + efi.tpm_log_size - 1, name, > > + prev); > > + > > + > > + /* TODO: BGRT */ > > +} > > + > > #ifdef CONFIG_EFI_VARS_MODULE > > static int __init efi_load_efivars(void) > > { > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c > > index c47e0c6ec00f..61f66c139afb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c > > @@ -330,6 +330,7 @@ void __init efi_esrt_init(void) > > > > esrt_data = (phys_addr_t)efi.esrt; > > esrt_data_size = size; > > + efi.esrt_size = size; > > > > end = esrt_data + size; > > pr_info("Reserving ESRT space from %pa to %pa.\n", &esrt_data, &end); > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c > > index 8986757eafaf..dc2c7608793a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c > > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ int __init efi_memattr_init(void) > > } > > > > tbl_size = sizeof(*tbl) + tbl->num_entries * tbl->desc_size; > > + efi.mem_attr_table_size = tbl_size; > > memblock_reserve(efi.mem_attr_table, tbl_size); > > set_bit(EFI_MEM_ATTR, &efi.flags); > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c > > index 0cbeb3d46b18..53cfb12513fa 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c > > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ int __init efi_tpm_eventlog_init(void) > > } > > > > tbl_size = sizeof(*log_tbl) + log_tbl->size; > > + efi.tpm_log_size = tbl_size; > > memblock_reserve(efi.tpm_log, tbl_size); > > early_memunmap(log_tbl, sizeof(*log_tbl)); > > return 0; > > diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h > > index f5083aa72eae..9c3f8d284b36 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/efi.h > > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h > > @@ -942,11 +942,15 @@ extern struct efi { > > unsigned long fw_vendor; /* fw_vendor */ > > unsigned long runtime; /* runtime table */ > > unsigned long config_table; /* config tables */ > > + unsigned long config_table_size; > > unsigned long esrt; /* ESRT table */ > > + unsigned long esrt_size; > > unsigned long properties_table; /* properties table */ > > unsigned long mem_attr_table; /* memory attributes table */ > > + unsigned long mem_attr_table_size; > > unsigned long rng_seed; /* UEFI firmware random seed */ > > unsigned long tpm_log; /* TPM2 Event Log table */ > > + unsigned long tpm_log_size; > > efi_get_time_t *get_time; > > efi_set_time_t *set_time; > > efi_get_wakeup_time_t *get_wakeup_time; > > @@ -980,6 +984,9 @@ efi_guid_to_str(efi_guid_t *guid, char *out) > > } > > > > extern void efi_init (void); > > +extern void efi_arch_request_resources(void); > > +extern void efi_request_config_table_resources(struct resource * > > + (*fn)(u64 start, u64 end, char *name, struct resource *prev)); > > extern void *efi_get_pal_addr (void); > > extern void efi_map_pal_code (void); > > extern void efi_memmap_walk (efi_freemem_callback_t callback, void *arg);
On 15 March 2018 at 04:41, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:39:23AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 14 March 2018 at 08:29, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> wrote: >> > In the last couples of months, there were some problems reported [1],[2] >> > around arm64 kexec/kdump. Where those phenomenon look different, >> > the root cause would be that kexec/kdump doesn't take into account >> > crucial "reserved" regions of system memory and unintentionally corrupts >> > them. >> > >> > Given that kexec-tools looks for all the information by seeking the file, >> > /proc/iomem, the first step to address said problems is to expand this file's >> > format so that it will have enough information about system memory and >> > its usage. >> > >> > Attached is my experimental code: With this patch applied, /proc/iomem sees >> > something like the below: >> > >> > (format A) >> > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM >> > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code >> > 41040000-411e8fff : Kernel data >> > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel >> > 58590000-585effff : EFI Resources >> > 58700000-5871ffff : EFI Resources >> > 58720000-58b5ffff : System RAM >> > 58720000-58b5ffff : EFI Resources >> > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM >> > 58b61018-58b61947 : EFI Memory Map >> > 59a7b118-59a7b667 : EFI Configuration Tables >> > 5be40000-5becffff : System RAM <== (A-1) >> > 5be40000-5becffff : EFI Resources >> > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM >> > 5bee0000-5bffffff : System RAM >> > 5bee0000-5bffffff : EFI Resources >> > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM >> > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 >> > >> > Meanwhile, the workaround I suggested in [3] gave us a simpler view: >> > >> > (format B) >> > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM >> > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code >> > 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data >> > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel >> > 58590000-585effff : reserved >> > 58700000-5871ffff : reserved >> > 58720000-58b5ffff : reserved >> > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM >> > 58b61000-58b61fff : reserved >> > 59a7b318-59a7b867 : reserved >> > 5be40000-5becffff : reserved <== (B-1) >> > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM >> > 5bee0000-5bffffff : reserved >> > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM >> > 5ec00000-5edfffff : reserved >> > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 >> > >> > Here all the regions to be protected are named just "reserved" whether >> > they are NOMAP regions or simply-memblock_reserve'd. They are not very >> > useful for anything but kexec/kdump which knows what they mean. >> > >> > Alternatively, we may want to give them more specific names, based on >> > related efi memory map descriptors and else, that will characterize >> > their contents: >> > >> > (format C) >> > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM >> > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code >> > 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data >> > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel >> > 58590000-585effff : ACPI Reclaim Memory >> > 58700000-5871ffff : ACPI Reclaim Memory >> > 58720000-58b5ffff : System RAM >> > 58720000-5878ffff : Runtime Data >> > 58790000-587dffff : Runtime Code >> > 587e0000-5882ffff : Runtime Data >> > 58830000-5887ffff : Runtime Code >> > 58880000-588cffff : Runtime Data >> > 588d0000-5891ffff : Runtime Code >> > 58920000-5896ffff : Runtime Data >> > 58970000-589bffff : Runtime Code >> > 589c0000-58a5ffff : Runtime Data >> > 58a60000-58abffff : Runtime Code >> > 58ac0000-58b0ffff : Runtime Data >> > 58b10000-58b5ffff : Runtime Code >> > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM >> > 58b61000-58b61fff : EFI Memory Map >> > 59a7b118-59a7b667 : EFI Memory Attributes Table >> > 5be40000-5becffff : System RAM >> > 5be40000-5becffff : Runtime Code >> > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM >> > 5bee0000-5bffffff : System RAM >> > 5bee0000-5bffffff : Runtime Data >> > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM >> > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 >> > >> > I once created a patch for this format, but it looks quite noisy and >> > names are a sort of mixture of memory attributes( ACPI Reclaim memory, >> > Conventional Memory, Persistent Memory etc.) vs. >> > function/usages ([Loader|Boot Service|Runtime] Code/Data). >> > (As a matter of fact, (C-1) consists of various ACPI tables.) >> > Anyhow, they seem not so useful for most of other applications. >> > >> > Those observations lead to format A, where some entries with the same >> > attributes are squeezed into a single entry under a simple name if they >> > are neighbouring. >> > >> > >> > So my questions here are: >> > >> > 1. Which format, A, B, or C, is the most appropriate for the moment? >> > or any other suggestions? >> > >> >> I think some variant of B should be sufficient. The only meaningful >> distinction between these reserved regions at a general level is >> whether they are NOMAP or not, so perhaps we can incorporate that. > > I would definitely like to give your opinion the first priority, > but also hear from other guys. > > Can you tell my why you think that the distinction, NOMAP or not, > is meaningful? > For diagnostic purposes, it may be useful to know whether a certain address is covered by the linear mapping or not. >> As for identifying things like EFI configuration tables: this is a >> moving target, and we also define our own config tables for the TPM >> log, screeninfo on ARM etc. Also, for EFI memory types, you can boot >> with efi=debug and look at the entire memory map. So I think adding >> all that information may be overkill. > > No doubt I agree. > The reason why I gave specific names to EFI configuration tables > is that all such tables are unambiguously listed in 'efi' structure, > while "screen info" seems to be arm-specific. > As for EFI memory types, I admit that they are inadequate for a source > of naming. > Nevertheless, I still have a sense that "reserved" sounds sloppy :) > I don't think that sounds sloppy at all. >> > Currently, there is a inconsistent view between (A) and the mainline's: >> > see (A-1) and (B-1). If this is really a matter, I can fix it. >> > Kexec-tools can be easily modified to accept both formats, though. >> > >> > >> > 2. How should we determine which regions be exported in /proc/iomem? >> > >> > a. Trust all the memblock_reserve'd regions as my previous patch [3] does. >> > >> > As I said, it's a kind of "overkill." Some of regions, say fdt, are >> > not required to be preserved across kexec. >> > >> >> I don't think there is anything wrong with listing all >> memblock_reserve()'d regions here, even if kexec has other means of >> ensuring that they are not touched. > > I initially thought that one downside in this approach is that we might > not able to re-use a reserved region for fdt, as well as others also > dynamically reserved by "/reserved-memory/" nodes, after kexec and that > it would end up more or less a memory leak eventually after iterating > kexec()'s. But > after thinking twice, I now don't believe it is a problem anymore. > In kexec case, we won't have to hand over a list of reserved regions to > secondary kernel. Kdump, on the other hand, will be triggered only once > for its nature anyway. > >> But as I said, I think it would be >> useful to distinguish them from NOMAP regions (even if the nesting >> below System RAM already shows that as well) > > Something like "reserved (no map)"? > Works for me
On 03/14/2018 01:59 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > In the last couples of months, there were some problems reported [1],[2] > around arm64 kexec/kdump. Where those phenomenon look different, > the root cause would be that kexec/kdump doesn't take into account > crucial "reserved" regions of system memory and unintentionally corrupts > them. > > Given that kexec-tools looks for all the information by seeking the file, > /proc/iomem, the first step to address said problems is to expand this file's > format so that it will have enough information about system memory and > its usage. > > Attached is my experimental code: With this patch applied, /proc/iomem sees > something like the below: > > (format A) > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > 41040000-411e8fff : Kernel data > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > 58590000-585effff : EFI Resources > 58700000-5871ffff : EFI Resources > 58720000-58b5ffff : System RAM > 58720000-58b5ffff : EFI Resources > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > 58b61018-58b61947 : EFI Memory Map > 59a7b118-59a7b667 : EFI Configuration Tables > 5be40000-5becffff : System RAM <== (A-1) > 5be40000-5becffff : EFI Resources > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > 5bee0000-5bffffff : System RAM > 5bee0000-5bffffff : EFI Resources > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > Meanwhile, the workaround I suggested in [3] gave us a simpler view: > > (format B) > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > 58590000-585effff : reserved > 58700000-5871ffff : reserved > 58720000-58b5ffff : reserved > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > 58b61000-58b61fff : reserved > 59a7b318-59a7b867 : reserved > 5be40000-5becffff : reserved <== (B-1) > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > 5bee0000-5bffffff : reserved > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > 5ec00000-5edfffff : reserved > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > Here all the regions to be protected are named just "reserved" whether > they are NOMAP regions or simply-memblock_reserve'd. Personally, I like this format over the other two proposed. However, I would suggest adding "reserved" regions as reserved (NOMAP) regions and reserved (MAP'ed) regions (or a similar meaning wording for the same). > They are not very > useful for anything but kexec/kdump which knows what they mean. I disagree. I have found the naming does help in debugging issues in the crashkernel itself which cause an early panic in the crashkernel. Knowing the type of entry in '/proc/iomem' really helps in understanding what the kexec-tools might have picked up and sent as a part of the "linux,usable-memory" range property to the crashkernel. > Alternatively, we may want to give them more specific names, based on > related efi memory map descriptors and else, that will characterize > their contents: > > (format C) > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > 58590000-585effff : ACPI Reclaim Memory > 58700000-5871ffff : ACPI Reclaim Memory > 58720000-58b5ffff : System RAM > 58720000-5878ffff : Runtime Data > 58790000-587dffff : Runtime Code > 587e0000-5882ffff : Runtime Data > 58830000-5887ffff : Runtime Code > 58880000-588cffff : Runtime Data > 588d0000-5891ffff : Runtime Code > 58920000-5896ffff : Runtime Data > 58970000-589bffff : Runtime Code > 589c0000-58a5ffff : Runtime Data > 58a60000-58abffff : Runtime Code > 58ac0000-58b0ffff : Runtime Data > 58b10000-58b5ffff : Runtime Code > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > 58b61000-58b61fff : EFI Memory Map > 59a7b118-59a7b667 : EFI Memory Attributes Table > 5be40000-5becffff : System RAM > 5be40000-5becffff : Runtime Code > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > 5bee0000-5bffffff : System RAM > 5bee0000-5bffffff : Runtime Data > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > I once created a patch for this format, but it looks quite noisy and > names are a sort of mixture of memory attributes( ACPI Reclaim memory, > Conventional Memory, Persistent Memory etc.) vs. > function/usages ([Loader|Boot Service|Runtime] Code/Data). > (As a matter of fact, (C-1) consists of various ACPI tables.) > Anyhow, they seem not so useful for most of other applications. > > Those observations lead to format A, where some entries with the same > attributes are squeezed into a single entry under a simple name if they > are neighbouring. > > > So my questions here are: > > 1. Which format, A, B, or C, is the most appropriate for the moment? > or any other suggestions? > > Currently, there is a inconsistent view between (A) and the mainline's: > see (A-1) and (B-1). If this is really a matter, I can fix it. > Kexec-tools can be easily modified to accept both formats, though. > > > 2. How should we determine which regions be exported in /proc/iomem? > > a. Trust all the memblock_reserve'd regions as my previous patch [3] does. > > As I said, it's a kind of "overkill." Some of regions, say fdt, are > not required to be preserved across kexec. I think we should preserve all the memblock_reserve'd regions. So +1 on this approach from my side. I believe it might help avoid issues we have seen in the past with 'kexec-tools' _incorrectly_ determining which regions to pick from the '/proc/iomem'. If every memblock_reserve'd region is exported in /proc/iomem', its easier to debug issues in the 'kexec-tools' which might have cause the early crashkernel to panic and we can exclude primary kernel as a potential suspect for causing the same. Regards, Bhupesh > > b. List regions separately and exhaustively later on at a single point > as my patch attached does. > > I'm afraid of any possibility that some regions may be doubly counted, > one from efi memory map search and another from other efi/acpi code > (various type of "tables" in most cases). > > c. Expand efi_mem_reserve() with an argument of "resource descriptor" and > replace memblock_reserve() in efi code wherever necessary so as to > maintain an export list. > > efi_mem_reserve() was first introduced for specific needs at kexec > on x86, but I believe that its coverage over efi code is far from perfect. > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-November/541831.html > [2] http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1802.2/06745.html > [3] http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1803.0/04658.html > http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1803.0/04659.html > > -Takahiro AKASHI > > ===8<=== > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > index 30ad2f085d1f..feda5cbdc6bf 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > @@ -214,13 +214,8 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) > > for_each_memblock(memory, region) { > res = alloc_bootmem_low(sizeof(*res)); > - if (memblock_is_nomap(region)) { > - res->name = "reserved"; > - res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM; > - } else { > - res->name = "System RAM"; > - res->flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; > - } > + res->name = "System RAM"; > + res->flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; > res->start = __pfn_to_phys(memblock_region_memory_base_pfn(region)); > res->end = __pfn_to_phys(memblock_region_memory_end_pfn(region)) - 1; > > @@ -239,6 +234,9 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) > request_resource(res, &crashk_res); > #endif > } > + > + /* Add firmware-reserved memory */ > + efi_arch_request_resources(); > } > > u64 __cpu_logical_map[NR_CPUS] = { [0 ... NR_CPUS-1] = INVALID_HWID }; > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > index 80d1a885def5..308143e69db4 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "efi: " fmt > > +#include <linux/bootmem.h> > #include <linux/efi.h> > #include <linux/init.h> > +#include <linux/ioport.h> > #include <linux/memblock.h> > #include <linux/mm_types.h> > #include <linux/of.h> > @@ -280,3 +282,97 @@ static int __init register_gop_device(void) > return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(pd); > } > subsys_initcall(register_gop_device); > + > +static unsigned long __init efi_memattr_to_iores_type(u64 addr) > +{ > + if (efi_mem_attributes(addr) & > + (EFI_MEMORY_WB|EFI_MEMORY_WT|EFI_MEMORY_WC)) > + return IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM; > + else > + return IORESOURCE_MEM; > +} > + > +static unsigned long __init efi_type_to_iores_desc(u64 addr) > +{ > + /* TODO */ > + return IORES_DESC_NONE; > +} > + > +static struct resource * __init _efi_arch_request_resource(u64 start, u64 end, > + char *name, struct resource *prev) > +{ > + struct resource *conflict, *res; > + > + res = alloc_bootmem_low(sizeof(*res)); > + > + res->start = start; > + res->end = end; > + res->flags = efi_memattr_to_iores_type(res->start); > + res->desc = efi_type_to_iores_desc(res->start); > + res->name = name; > + > + conflict = request_resource_conflict(&iomem_resource, res); > + if (conflict) { > + if (prev && (prev->parent == conflict) && > + ((prev->end + 1) == start)) { > + /* merge consecutive regions */ > + adjust_resource(prev, prev->start, > + end - prev->start + 1); > + free_bootmem((unsigned long)res, sizeof(*res)); > + res = prev; > + } else > + insert_resource(conflict, res); > + } > + > + return res; > +} > + > +/* Kexec expects those resources to be preserved */ > +void __init efi_arch_request_resources(void) > +{ > + struct resource *res = NULL; > + efi_memory_desc_t *md; > + u64 paddr, npages, size; > + > + /* EFI Memory Map */ > + /* FIXME */ > + _efi_arch_request_resource(efi.memmap.phys_map, > + efi.memmap.phys_map > + + efi.memmap.desc_size * efi.memmap.nr_map - 1, > + "EFI Memory Map", res); > + > + /* generic EFI Configuration Tables */ > + efi_request_config_table_resources(_efi_arch_request_resource); > + > + /* architecture-specifc Configuration Tables */ > + if (screen_info.lfb_size) > + _efi_arch_request_resource(screen_info.lfb_base, > + screen_info.lfb_base + screen_info.lfb_size - 1, > + "EFI Screen Info Table", res); > + > + /* architecture-specific EFI resources */ > + /* FIXME */ > + efi_memmap_install(efi.memmap.phys_map, efi.memmap.nr_map); > + > + res = NULL; > + for_each_efi_memory_desc(md) { > + paddr = md->phys_addr; > + npages = md->num_pages; > + > + memrange_efi_to_native(&paddr, &npages); > + size = npages << PAGE_SHIFT; > + > + if (is_memory(md)) { > + if (!is_usable_memory(md)) > + res = _efi_arch_request_resource(paddr, > + paddr + size - 1, > + "EFI Resources", res); > + > + if (md->type == EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY) > + res = _efi_arch_request_resource(paddr, > + paddr + size - 1, > + "EFI Resources", res); > + } > + } > + efi_memmap_unmap(); > +} > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > index cd42f66a7c85..b13c9461278b 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > @@ -603,6 +603,33 @@ int __init efi_config_init(efi_config_table_type_t *arch_tables) > return ret; > } > > +void __init efi_request_config_table_resources(struct resource *(*fn)(u64 start, > + u64 end, char *name, struct resource *prev)) > +{ > + struct resource *prev = NULL; > + char *name = "EFI Configuration Tables"; > + > + if (efi.config_table_size) > + prev = fn(efi.config_table, > + efi.config_table + efi.config_table_size - 1, name, > + prev); > + > + if (efi.mem_attr_table_size) > + prev = fn(efi.mem_attr_table, > + efi.mem_attr_table + efi.mem_attr_table_size - 1, name, > + prev); > + > + if (efi.esrt_size) > + prev = fn(efi.esrt, efi.esrt + efi.esrt_size - 1, name, prev); > + > + if (efi.tpm_log_size) > + prev = fn(efi.tpm_log, efi.tpm_log + efi.tpm_log_size - 1, name, > + prev); > + > + > + /* TODO: BGRT */ > +} > + > #ifdef CONFIG_EFI_VARS_MODULE > static int __init efi_load_efivars(void) > { > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c > index c47e0c6ec00f..61f66c139afb 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c > @@ -330,6 +330,7 @@ void __init efi_esrt_init(void) > > esrt_data = (phys_addr_t)efi.esrt; > esrt_data_size = size; > + efi.esrt_size = size; > > end = esrt_data + size; > pr_info("Reserving ESRT space from %pa to %pa.\n", &esrt_data, &end); > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c > index 8986757eafaf..dc2c7608793a 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ int __init efi_memattr_init(void) > } > > tbl_size = sizeof(*tbl) + tbl->num_entries * tbl->desc_size; > + efi.mem_attr_table_size = tbl_size; > memblock_reserve(efi.mem_attr_table, tbl_size); > set_bit(EFI_MEM_ATTR, &efi.flags); > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c > index 0cbeb3d46b18..53cfb12513fa 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ int __init efi_tpm_eventlog_init(void) > } > > tbl_size = sizeof(*log_tbl) + log_tbl->size; > + efi.tpm_log_size = tbl_size; > memblock_reserve(efi.tpm_log, tbl_size); > early_memunmap(log_tbl, sizeof(*log_tbl)); > return 0; > diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h > index f5083aa72eae..9c3f8d284b36 100644 > --- a/include/linux/efi.h > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h > @@ -942,11 +942,15 @@ extern struct efi { > unsigned long fw_vendor; /* fw_vendor */ > unsigned long runtime; /* runtime table */ > unsigned long config_table; /* config tables */ > + unsigned long config_table_size; > unsigned long esrt; /* ESRT table */ > + unsigned long esrt_size; > unsigned long properties_table; /* properties table */ > unsigned long mem_attr_table; /* memory attributes table */ > + unsigned long mem_attr_table_size; > unsigned long rng_seed; /* UEFI firmware random seed */ > unsigned long tpm_log; /* TPM2 Event Log table */ > + unsigned long tpm_log_size; > efi_get_time_t *get_time; > efi_set_time_t *set_time; > efi_get_wakeup_time_t *get_wakeup_time; > @@ -980,6 +984,9 @@ efi_guid_to_str(efi_guid_t *guid, char *out) > } > > extern void efi_init (void); > +extern void efi_arch_request_resources(void); > +extern void efi_request_config_table_resources(struct resource * > + (*fn)(u64 start, u64 end, char *name, struct resource *prev)); > extern void *efi_get_pal_addr (void); > extern void efi_map_pal_code (void); > extern void efi_memmap_walk (efi_freemem_callback_t callback, void *arg); >
Ard, Bhupesh, Thank you for your comments. On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:18:34AM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > On 03/14/2018 01:59 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >In the last couples of months, there were some problems reported [1],[2] > >around arm64 kexec/kdump. Where those phenomenon look different, > >the root cause would be that kexec/kdump doesn't take into account > >crucial "reserved" regions of system memory and unintentionally corrupts > >them. > > > >Given that kexec-tools looks for all the information by seeking the file, > >/proc/iomem, the first step to address said problems is to expand this file's > >format so that it will have enough information about system memory and > >its usage. > > > >Attached is my experimental code: With this patch applied, /proc/iomem sees > >something like the below: > > > >(format A) > >40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > > 41040000-411e8fff : Kernel data > > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > > 58590000-585effff : EFI Resources > > 58700000-5871ffff : EFI Resources > >58720000-58b5ffff : System RAM > > 58720000-58b5ffff : EFI Resources > >58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > > 58b61018-58b61947 : EFI Memory Map > > 59a7b118-59a7b667 : EFI Configuration Tables > >5be40000-5becffff : System RAM <== (A-1) > > 5be40000-5becffff : EFI Resources > >5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > >5bee0000-5bffffff : System RAM > > 5bee0000-5bffffff : EFI Resources > >5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > >8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > > >Meanwhile, the workaround I suggested in [3] gave us a simpler view: > > > >(format B) > >40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > > 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data > > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > > 58590000-585effff : reserved > > 58700000-5871ffff : reserved > >58720000-58b5ffff : reserved > >58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > > 58b61000-58b61fff : reserved > > 59a7b318-59a7b867 : reserved > >5be40000-5becffff : reserved <== (B-1) > >5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > >5bee0000-5bffffff : reserved > >5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > > 5ec00000-5edfffff : reserved > >8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > > >Here all the regions to be protected are named just "reserved" whether > >they are NOMAP regions or simply-memblock_reserve'd. > > Personally, I like this format over the other two proposed. > > However, I would suggest adding "reserved" regions as reserved (NOMAP) > regions and reserved (MAP'ed) regions (or a similar meaning wording for the > same). Okay. > >They are not very > >useful for anything but kexec/kdump which knows what they mean. > > I disagree. I have found the naming does help in debugging issues > in the crashkernel itself which cause an early panic in the crashkernel. > > Knowing the type of entry in '/proc/iomem' really helps in understanding > what the kexec-tools might have picked up and sent as a part of the > "linux,usable-memory" range property to the crashkernel. You're still talking about kexec/kdump. My point was that "reserved" doesn't convey lots of meanings to other features/applications. Anyway, nobody seems to agree to giving specific names to those regions. > >Alternatively, we may want to give them more specific names, based on > >related efi memory map descriptors and else, that will characterize > >their contents: > > > >(format C) > >40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > > 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data > > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > > 58590000-585effff : ACPI Reclaim Memory > > 58700000-5871ffff : ACPI Reclaim Memory > >58720000-58b5ffff : System RAM > > 58720000-5878ffff : Runtime Data > > 58790000-587dffff : Runtime Code > > 587e0000-5882ffff : Runtime Data > > 58830000-5887ffff : Runtime Code > > 58880000-588cffff : Runtime Data > > 588d0000-5891ffff : Runtime Code > > 58920000-5896ffff : Runtime Data > > 58970000-589bffff : Runtime Code > > 589c0000-58a5ffff : Runtime Data > > 58a60000-58abffff : Runtime Code > > 58ac0000-58b0ffff : Runtime Data > > 58b10000-58b5ffff : Runtime Code > >58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > > 58b61000-58b61fff : EFI Memory Map > > 59a7b118-59a7b667 : EFI Memory Attributes Table > >5be40000-5becffff : System RAM > > 5be40000-5becffff : Runtime Code > >5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > >5bee0000-5bffffff : System RAM > > 5bee0000-5bffffff : Runtime Data > >5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > >8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > > >I once created a patch for this format, but it looks quite noisy and > >names are a sort of mixture of memory attributes( ACPI Reclaim memory, > >Conventional Memory, Persistent Memory etc.) vs. > >function/usages ([Loader|Boot Service|Runtime] Code/Data). > >(As a matter of fact, (C-1) consists of various ACPI tables.) > >Anyhow, they seem not so useful for most of other applications. > > > >Those observations lead to format A, where some entries with the same > >attributes are squeezed into a single entry under a simple name if they > >are neighbouring. > > > > > >So my questions here are: > > > >1. Which format, A, B, or C, is the most appropriate for the moment? > > or any other suggestions? > > > >Currently, there is a inconsistent view between (A) and the mainline's: > >see (A-1) and (B-1). If this is really a matter, I can fix it. > >Kexec-tools can be easily modified to accept both formats, though. > > > > > >2. How should we determine which regions be exported in /proc/iomem? > > > > a. Trust all the memblock_reserve'd regions as my previous patch [3] does. > > > > As I said, it's a kind of "overkill." Some of regions, say fdt, are > > not required to be preserved across kexec. > > > I think we should preserve all the memblock_reserve'd regions. So +1 on this > approach from my side. I believe it might help avoid issues we have seen in > the past with 'kexec-tools' _incorrectly_ determining which regions to pick > from the '/proc/iomem'. As I said in my reply to Ard's comment, I now know *overkill* is not a big issue and I will go for this approach. > If every memblock_reserve'd region is exported in /proc/iomem', its easier > to debug issues in the 'kexec-tools' which might have cause the early > crashkernel to panic and we can exclude primary kernel as a potential > suspect for causing the same. After thinking twice, I've come up with yet another format of /proc/iomem: (format D) 40000000-5fffffff : System RAM 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel 58590000-585effff : reserved 58700000-5871ffff : reserved 58720000-58b5ffff : reserved (no map) 58b61000-58b61fff : reserved 59a7b118-59a7b667 : reserved 5be40000-5becffff : reserved (no map) 5bee0000-5bffffff : reserved (no map) 5ec00000-5edfffff : reserved 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 I think that this gives us a simpler & more intuitive view of system ram as all (firmware-)reserved regions as well as NOMAP regions are listed under *one* continuous memory resource of "System RAM" alike. (Please note that there is no change in memblock status.) In addition, I'd like to modify crash dump kernel's memory attributes as well: (format D/kdump) 40000000-5fffffff : System RAM 40000000-543fffff : reserved (no map) 54480000-5531ffff : Kernel code ;; 0x54400000 55440000-555e9fff : Kernel data ;; | "Crash kernel" above 555ea000-555ea274 : reserved ;; 0x583fffff 58400000-5858ffff : reserved (no map) 58590000-585effff : reserved 585f0000-586fffff : reserved (no map) 58700000-5871ffff : reserved 58720000-58b60fff : reserved (no map) 58b61000-58b61fff : reserved 58b62000-59a7afff : reserved (no map) 59a7b118-59a7b667 : reserved 59a7c000-5fffffff : reserved (no map) 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 Here all the memory regions which belong to primary kernel are actually marked NOMAP instead of being removed from memblock.memory. This view of /proc/iomem looks quite similar to format D and, I hope, it also helps us understand system ram usage on kdump. My only concern is that this format(D,D/kdump) is a bit incompatible with the current implementation, which was introduced by my commit e7cd190385d1 ("arm64: mark reserved memblock regions explicitly in iomem"), but we need some changes, anyway, in order to take into account reserved memory regions. Unless anybody has a strong objection, I will post a kernel patch, as well as kexec-tools', based on this format/approach. Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI > Regards, > Bhupesh > > > > > b. List regions separately and exhaustively later on at a single point > > as my patch attached does. > > > > I'm afraid of any possibility that some regions may be doubly counted, > > one from efi memory map search and another from other efi/acpi code > > (various type of "tables" in most cases). > > > > c. Expand efi_mem_reserve() with an argument of "resource descriptor" and > > replace memblock_reserve() in efi code wherever necessary so as to > > maintain an export list. > > > > efi_mem_reserve() was first introduced for specific needs at kexec > > on x86, but I believe that its coverage over efi code is far from perfect. > > > >[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-November/541831.html > >[2] http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1802.2/06745.html > >[3] http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1803.0/04658.html > > http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1803.0/04659.html > > > >-Takahiro AKASHI > > > >===8<=== > >diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > >index 30ad2f085d1f..feda5cbdc6bf 100644 > >--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > >+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > >@@ -214,13 +214,8 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) > > for_each_memblock(memory, region) { > > res = alloc_bootmem_low(sizeof(*res)); > >- if (memblock_is_nomap(region)) { > >- res->name = "reserved"; > >- res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM; > >- } else { > >- res->name = "System RAM"; > >- res->flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; > >- } > >+ res->name = "System RAM"; > >+ res->flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; > > res->start = __pfn_to_phys(memblock_region_memory_base_pfn(region)); > > res->end = __pfn_to_phys(memblock_region_memory_end_pfn(region)) - 1; > >@@ -239,6 +234,9 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) > > request_resource(res, &crashk_res); > > #endif > > } > >+ > >+ /* Add firmware-reserved memory */ > >+ efi_arch_request_resources(); > > } > > u64 __cpu_logical_map[NR_CPUS] = { [0 ... NR_CPUS-1] = INVALID_HWID }; > >diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > >index 80d1a885def5..308143e69db4 100644 > >--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > >+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c > >@@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "efi: " fmt > >+#include <linux/bootmem.h> > > #include <linux/efi.h> > > #include <linux/init.h> > >+#include <linux/ioport.h> > > #include <linux/memblock.h> > > #include <linux/mm_types.h> > > #include <linux/of.h> > >@@ -280,3 +282,97 @@ static int __init register_gop_device(void) > > return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(pd); > > } > > subsys_initcall(register_gop_device); > >+ > >+static unsigned long __init efi_memattr_to_iores_type(u64 addr) > >+{ > >+ if (efi_mem_attributes(addr) & > >+ (EFI_MEMORY_WB|EFI_MEMORY_WT|EFI_MEMORY_WC)) > >+ return IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM; > >+ else > >+ return IORESOURCE_MEM; > >+} > >+ > >+static unsigned long __init efi_type_to_iores_desc(u64 addr) > >+{ > >+ /* TODO */ > >+ return IORES_DESC_NONE; > >+} > >+ > >+static struct resource * __init _efi_arch_request_resource(u64 start, u64 end, > >+ char *name, struct resource *prev) > >+{ > >+ struct resource *conflict, *res; > >+ > >+ res = alloc_bootmem_low(sizeof(*res)); > >+ > >+ res->start = start; > >+ res->end = end; > >+ res->flags = efi_memattr_to_iores_type(res->start); > >+ res->desc = efi_type_to_iores_desc(res->start); > >+ res->name = name; > >+ > >+ conflict = request_resource_conflict(&iomem_resource, res); > >+ if (conflict) { > >+ if (prev && (prev->parent == conflict) && > >+ ((prev->end + 1) == start)) { > >+ /* merge consecutive regions */ > >+ adjust_resource(prev, prev->start, > >+ end - prev->start + 1); > >+ free_bootmem((unsigned long)res, sizeof(*res)); > >+ res = prev; > >+ } else > >+ insert_resource(conflict, res); > >+ } > >+ > >+ return res; > >+} > >+ > >+/* Kexec expects those resources to be preserved */ > >+void __init efi_arch_request_resources(void) > >+{ > >+ struct resource *res = NULL; > >+ efi_memory_desc_t *md; > >+ u64 paddr, npages, size; > >+ > >+ /* EFI Memory Map */ > >+ /* FIXME */ > >+ _efi_arch_request_resource(efi.memmap.phys_map, > >+ efi.memmap.phys_map > >+ + efi.memmap.desc_size * efi.memmap.nr_map - 1, > >+ "EFI Memory Map", res); > >+ > >+ /* generic EFI Configuration Tables */ > >+ efi_request_config_table_resources(_efi_arch_request_resource); > >+ > >+ /* architecture-specifc Configuration Tables */ > >+ if (screen_info.lfb_size) > >+ _efi_arch_request_resource(screen_info.lfb_base, > >+ screen_info.lfb_base + screen_info.lfb_size - 1, > >+ "EFI Screen Info Table", res); > >+ > >+ /* architecture-specific EFI resources */ > >+ /* FIXME */ > >+ efi_memmap_install(efi.memmap.phys_map, efi.memmap.nr_map); > >+ > >+ res = NULL; > >+ for_each_efi_memory_desc(md) { > >+ paddr = md->phys_addr; > >+ npages = md->num_pages; > >+ > >+ memrange_efi_to_native(&paddr, &npages); > >+ size = npages << PAGE_SHIFT; > >+ > >+ if (is_memory(md)) { > >+ if (!is_usable_memory(md)) > >+ res = _efi_arch_request_resource(paddr, > >+ paddr + size - 1, > >+ "EFI Resources", res); > >+ > >+ if (md->type == EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY) > >+ res = _efi_arch_request_resource(paddr, > >+ paddr + size - 1, > >+ "EFI Resources", res); > >+ } > >+ } > >+ efi_memmap_unmap(); > >+} > >diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > >index cd42f66a7c85..b13c9461278b 100644 > >--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > >+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c > >@@ -603,6 +603,33 @@ int __init efi_config_init(efi_config_table_type_t *arch_tables) > > return ret; > > } > >+void __init efi_request_config_table_resources(struct resource *(*fn)(u64 start, > >+ u64 end, char *name, struct resource *prev)) > >+{ > >+ struct resource *prev = NULL; > >+ char *name = "EFI Configuration Tables"; > >+ > >+ if (efi.config_table_size) > >+ prev = fn(efi.config_table, > >+ efi.config_table + efi.config_table_size - 1, name, > >+ prev); > >+ > >+ if (efi.mem_attr_table_size) > >+ prev = fn(efi.mem_attr_table, > >+ efi.mem_attr_table + efi.mem_attr_table_size - 1, name, > >+ prev); > >+ > >+ if (efi.esrt_size) > >+ prev = fn(efi.esrt, efi.esrt + efi.esrt_size - 1, name, prev); > >+ > >+ if (efi.tpm_log_size) > >+ prev = fn(efi.tpm_log, efi.tpm_log + efi.tpm_log_size - 1, name, > >+ prev); > >+ > >+ > >+ /* TODO: BGRT */ > >+} > >+ > > #ifdef CONFIG_EFI_VARS_MODULE > > static int __init efi_load_efivars(void) > > { > >diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c > >index c47e0c6ec00f..61f66c139afb 100644 > >--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c > >+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c > >@@ -330,6 +330,7 @@ void __init efi_esrt_init(void) > > esrt_data = (phys_addr_t)efi.esrt; > > esrt_data_size = size; > >+ efi.esrt_size = size; > > end = esrt_data + size; > > pr_info("Reserving ESRT space from %pa to %pa.\n", &esrt_data, &end); > >diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c > >index 8986757eafaf..dc2c7608793a 100644 > >--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c > >+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c > >@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ int __init efi_memattr_init(void) > > } > > tbl_size = sizeof(*tbl) + tbl->num_entries * tbl->desc_size; > >+ efi.mem_attr_table_size = tbl_size; > > memblock_reserve(efi.mem_attr_table, tbl_size); > > set_bit(EFI_MEM_ATTR, &efi.flags); > >diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c > >index 0cbeb3d46b18..53cfb12513fa 100644 > >--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c > >+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c > >@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ int __init efi_tpm_eventlog_init(void) > > } > > tbl_size = sizeof(*log_tbl) + log_tbl->size; > >+ efi.tpm_log_size = tbl_size; > > memblock_reserve(efi.tpm_log, tbl_size); > > early_memunmap(log_tbl, sizeof(*log_tbl)); > > return 0; > >diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h > >index f5083aa72eae..9c3f8d284b36 100644 > >--- a/include/linux/efi.h > >+++ b/include/linux/efi.h > >@@ -942,11 +942,15 @@ extern struct efi { > > unsigned long fw_vendor; /* fw_vendor */ > > unsigned long runtime; /* runtime table */ > > unsigned long config_table; /* config tables */ > >+ unsigned long config_table_size; > > unsigned long esrt; /* ESRT table */ > >+ unsigned long esrt_size; > > unsigned long properties_table; /* properties table */ > > unsigned long mem_attr_table; /* memory attributes table */ > >+ unsigned long mem_attr_table_size; > > unsigned long rng_seed; /* UEFI firmware random seed */ > > unsigned long tpm_log; /* TPM2 Event Log table */ > >+ unsigned long tpm_log_size; > > efi_get_time_t *get_time; > > efi_set_time_t *set_time; > > efi_get_wakeup_time_t *get_wakeup_time; > >@@ -980,6 +984,9 @@ efi_guid_to_str(efi_guid_t *guid, char *out) > > } > > extern void efi_init (void); > >+extern void efi_arch_request_resources(void); > >+extern void efi_request_config_table_resources(struct resource * > >+ (*fn)(u64 start, u64 end, char *name, struct resource *prev)); > > extern void *efi_get_pal_addr (void); > > extern void efi_map_pal_code (void); > > extern void efi_memmap_walk (efi_freemem_callback_t callback, void *arg); > > >
Hi Akashi, On 27/03/18 11:16, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:18:34AM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: >> On 03/14/2018 01:59 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>> Currently, there is a inconsistent view between (A) and the mainline's: >>> see (A-1) and (B-1). If this is really a matter, I can fix it. >>> Kexec-tools can be easily modified to accept both formats, though. Ooer, what needs changing in kexec-tools? What happens if someone doesn't update userspace at the same time? Is there a format which doesn't require a user-space change, (and shouldn't we pick that one?) >>> 2. How should we determine which regions be exported in /proc/iomem? >>> >>> a. Trust all the memblock_reserve'd regions as my previous patch [3] does. >>> >>> As I said, it's a kind of "overkill." Some of regions, say fdt, are >>> not required to be preserved across kexec. >> >> >> I think we should preserve all the memblock_reserve'd regions. So +1 on this >> approach from my side. I believe it might help avoid issues we have seen in >> the past with 'kexec-tools' _incorrectly_ determining which regions to pick >> from the '/proc/iomem'. > > As I said in my reply to Ard's comment, I now know *overkill* is not a big > issue and I will go for this approach. /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved has all kinds of weird stuff in it, including some smaller-than-a-page reservations that appear to come from the percpu allocator. I agree it will make the implementation simpler, and reserving 'too much' isn't an issue. Thanks, James
James, My apologies for slow response. I had a long weekend. On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 02:32:49PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > Hi Akashi, > > On 27/03/18 11:16, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:18:34AM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > >> On 03/14/2018 01:59 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >>> Currently, there is a inconsistent view between (A) and the mainline's: > >>> see (A-1) and (B-1). If this is really a matter, I can fix it. > >>> Kexec-tools can be easily modified to accept both formats, though. > > Ooer, what needs changing in kexec-tools? What happens if someone doesn't update > userspace at the same time? Basically, changes that I made on /proc/iomem in my new format D were: 1. to move NOMAP region entries, formerly named "reserved" and now named "reserved (no map)", under System RAM 2. to add new entries for firmware-reserved regions as "reserved" also under System RAM On the other hand, current kexec-tools, in particular kexec command, only scan top-level "System RAM" entries as well as "reserved" entries. So if someone doesn't update kexec-tools, secondary kernel may potentially crash during boot time either because a. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a NOMAP region which are not suitable for usable memory, or b. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a reserved region whose contents can be overwritten. While we see (b) even today, (a) is a backward compatibility issue. Note: we have a different story for kdump (alignment error), and I will take a different approach to fixing kdump case. > Is there a format which doesn't require a user-space change, (and shouldn't we > pick that one?) The only solution that I can imagine for now to prevent (a) and (b) at the same time without any user-space change is 2+. to add new entries for firmware-reserved regions as "reserved", in addition to the current NOMAP regions, at top level (format E) 40000000-5858ffff : System RAM 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel 58590000-585effff : reserved 484f0000-586fffff : System RAM 58700000-5871ffff : reserved 58720000-58b5ffff : reserved (no map) 58b60000-58b0ffff : System RAM 58b61000-58b61fff : reserved 58620000-59a7b117 : System RAM 59a7b118-59a7b667 : reserved 59a7b668-5be3ffff : System RAM 5be40000-5becffff : reserved (no map) 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM 5bee0000-5bffffff : reserved (no map) 5ec00000-5edfffff : reserved 5ee00000-5fffffff ; System RAM 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 This does not only look quite noisy but also ignores the fact that reserved regions are part of System RAM (or memblock.memory). Or to maximize the compatibility, we may adopt format B: (format B) 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel 58590000-585effff : reserved 58700000-5871ffff : reserved 58720000-58b5ffff : reserved (no map) 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM 58b61000-58b61fff : reserved 59a7b118-59a7b667 : reserved 5be40000-5becffff : reserved (no map) 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM 5bee0000-5bffffff : reserved (no map) 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM 5ec00000-5edfffff : reserved 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 but, in this case, we need some change on kexec-tools to fix (b). > >>> 2. How should we determine which regions be exported in /proc/iomem? > >>> > >>> a. Trust all the memblock_reserve'd regions as my previous patch [3] does. > >>> > >>> As I said, it's a kind of "overkill." Some of regions, say fdt, are > >>> not required to be preserved across kexec. > >> > >> > >> I think we should preserve all the memblock_reserve'd regions. So +1 on this > >> approach from my side. I believe it might help avoid issues we have seen in > >> the past with 'kexec-tools' _incorrectly_ determining which regions to pick > >> from the '/proc/iomem'. > > > > As I said in my reply to Ard's comment, I now know *overkill* is not a big > > issue and I will go for this approach. > > /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved has all kinds of weird stuff in it, > including some smaller-than-a-page reservations that appear to come from the > percpu allocator. > > I agree it will make the implementation simpler, and reserving 'too much' isn't > an issue. Are you suggesting that we should use /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved without modifying current /proc/iomem? (Note that, even in this approach, we need an user-space change.) Hmm, overall, this approach will be preferable to format B/E. Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI > > Thanks, > > James
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:53:32AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > James, > > My apologies for slow response. I had a long weekend. > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 02:32:49PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > > Hi Akashi, > > > > On 27/03/18 11:16, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:18:34AM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > > >> On 03/14/2018 01:59 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > >>> Currently, there is a inconsistent view between (A) and the mainline's: > > >>> see (A-1) and (B-1). If this is really a matter, I can fix it. > > >>> Kexec-tools can be easily modified to accept both formats, though. > > > > Ooer, what needs changing in kexec-tools? What happens if someone doesn't update > > userspace at the same time? > > Basically, changes that I made on /proc/iomem in my new format D were: > 1. to move NOMAP region entries, formerly named "reserved" and now named > "reserved (no map)", under System RAM > 2. to add new entries for firmware-reserved regions as "reserved" also > under System RAM > > On the other hand, current kexec-tools, in particular kexec command, > only scan top-level "System RAM" entries as well as "reserved" entries. > > So if someone doesn't update kexec-tools, secondary kernel may potentially > crash during boot time either because > a. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a NOMAP region > which are not suitable for usable memory, or > b. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a reserved region > whose contents can be overwritten. > > While we see (b) even today, (a) is a backward compatibility issue. > > Note: we have a different story for kdump (alignment error), and I will > take a different approach to fixing kdump case. > > > Is there a format which doesn't require a user-space change, (and shouldn't we > > pick that one?) > > The only solution that I can imagine for now to prevent (a) and (b) > at the same time without any user-space change is > 2+. to add new entries for firmware-reserved regions as "reserved", > in addition to the current NOMAP regions, at top level > > (format E) > 40000000-5858ffff : System RAM > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > 58590000-585effff : reserved > 484f0000-586fffff : System RAM > 58700000-5871ffff : reserved > 58720000-58b5ffff : reserved (no map) > 58b60000-58b0ffff : System RAM > 58b61000-58b61fff : reserved > 58620000-59a7b117 : System RAM > 59a7b118-59a7b667 : reserved > 59a7b668-5be3ffff : System RAM > 5be40000-5becffff : reserved (no map) > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > 5bee0000-5bffffff : reserved (no map) > 5ec00000-5edfffff : reserved > 5ee00000-5fffffff ; System RAM > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > This does not only look quite noisy but also ignores the fact that > reserved regions are part of System RAM (or memblock.memory). > > Or to maximize the compatibility, we may adopt format B: > > (format B) > 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM > 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code > 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data > 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel > 58590000-585effff : reserved > 58700000-5871ffff : reserved > 58720000-58b5ffff : reserved (no map) > 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM > 58b61000-58b61fff : reserved > 59a7b118-59a7b667 : reserved > 5be40000-5becffff : reserved (no map) > 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM > 5bee0000-5bffffff : reserved (no map) > 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM > 5ec00000-5edfffff : reserved > 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 > > but, in this case, we need some change on kexec-tools to fix (b). > > > >>> 2. How should we determine which regions be exported in /proc/iomem? > > >>> > > >>> a. Trust all the memblock_reserve'd regions as my previous patch [3] does. > > >>> > > >>> As I said, it's a kind of "overkill." Some of regions, say fdt, are > > >>> not required to be preserved across kexec. > > >> > > >> > > >> I think we should preserve all the memblock_reserve'd regions. So +1 on this > > >> approach from my side. I believe it might help avoid issues we have seen in > > >> the past with 'kexec-tools' _incorrectly_ determining which regions to pick > > >> from the '/proc/iomem'. > > > > > > As I said in my reply to Ard's comment, I now know *overkill* is not a big > > > issue and I will go for this approach. > > > > /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved has all kinds of weird stuff in it, > > including some smaller-than-a-page reservations that appear to come from the > > percpu allocator. > > > > I agree it will make the implementation simpler, and reserving 'too much' isn't > > an issue. > > Are you suggesting that we should use /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved > without modifying current /proc/iomem? > (Note that, even in this approach, we need an user-space change.) > > Hmm, overall, this approach will be preferable to format B/E. What is nice in this approach is that we don't have to make any change on kernel side. Now that I have a patch for kexec-tools, you can try: https://git.linaro.org/people/takahiro.akashi/kexec-tools.git resv_mem2 # I don't know yet whether people are happy with this fix, and also have kernel patches for my other approaches. They are neither not much complicated. On the other hand, kdump failure due to alignment fault at ACPI tables won't be fixed by this patch anyway. I already submitted two different approaches[1],[2]. [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-January/553098.html [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-February/557248.html There can be yet another approach; we would add a list of reserved regions to a dtb property, "linux,usable-memory-range". But I don't like it. What do you think? Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI > Thanks, > -Takahiro AKASHI > > > > > Thanks, > > > > James
Hi Akashi, Sorry I've been sluggish on this issue, On 05/04/18 03:42, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:53:32AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 02:32:49PM +0100, James Morse wrote: >>> On 27/03/18 11:16, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:18:34AM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: >>>>> On 03/14/2018 01:59 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>>>>> Currently, there is a inconsistent view between (A) and the mainline's: >>>>>> see (A-1) and (B-1). If this is really a matter, I can fix it. >>>>>> Kexec-tools can be easily modified to accept both formats, though. >>> >>> Ooer, what needs changing in kexec-tools? What happens if someone doesn't update >>> userspace at the same time? >> >> Basically, changes that I made on /proc/iomem in my new format D were: >> 1. to move NOMAP region entries, formerly named "reserved" and now named >> "reserved (no map)", under System RAM >> 2. to add new entries for firmware-reserved regions as "reserved" also >> under System RAM >> >> On the other hand, current kexec-tools, in particular kexec command, >> only scan top-level "System RAM" entries as well as "reserved" entries. as well as? Does this mean kexec will pick up the reserved region if its written as: | 00001000-0009d7ff : System RAM | 00001000-00001fff : reserved >> So if someone doesn't update kexec-tools, secondary kernel may potentially >> crash during boot time Doesn't this make it a kernel bug? This didn't happen before v4.14 because nomap and kexec-don't-write-here were the same thing. Since f56ab9a5b73c they aren't, as ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY is_usable_memory(). The memblock_reserve() is enough to stop the kernel overwriting the region, but not to stop kexec placing the new kernel over the top. (now I can't see how the efi memory map itself is reserved ... I thought that was nomap too, but it looks like its just 'not mapped' when efi_init() is called) >> either because >> a. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a NOMAP region >> which are not suitable for usable memory, or >> b. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a reserved region >> whose contents can be overwritten. >> >> While we see (b) even today, (a) is a backward compatibility issue. (a) doesn't happen because request_standard_resources() checks memblock_is_nomap(), and reports those regions as 'reserved'. [...] >>>>> I think we should preserve all the memblock_reserve'd regions. So +1 on this >>>>> approach from my side. I believe it might help avoid issues we have seen in >>>>> the past with 'kexec-tools' _incorrectly_ determining which regions to pick >>>>> from the '/proc/iomem'. >>>> >>>> As I said in my reply to Ard's comment, I now know *overkill* is not a big >>>> issue and I will go for this approach. >>> >>> /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved has all kinds of weird stuff in it, >>> including some smaller-than-a-page reservations that appear to come from the >>> percpu allocator. >>> >>> I agree it will make the implementation simpler, and reserving 'too much' isn't >>> an issue. >> >> Are you suggesting that we should use /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved >> without modifying current /proc/iomem? >> (Note that, even in this approach, we need an user-space change.) Sorry for the late response: no. My point was memblock_reserve() is used for all sorts of different things, most of which don't matter for kexec. Its reservations are not always page-aligned. >> Hmm, overall, this approach will be preferable to format B/E. > > What is nice in this approach is that we don't have to make any change > on kernel side. Now that I have a patch for kexec-tools, you can try: > https://git.linaro.org/people/takahiro.akashi/kexec-tools.git resv_mem2 This requires user-space to mount debugfs too, which requires CONFIG_DEBUG_FS... We can't expect user-space to upgrade to fix this issue. > # I don't know yet whether people are happy with this fix, and also have > kernel patches for my other approaches. They are neither not much > complicated. I don't think we should fix this in userspace, exporting all the memblock_reserved() regions as 'reserved' in /proc/iomem looks like the right thing to do. ah, you have patches, I've had a couple of attempts at this too... > On the other hand, kdump failure due to alignment fault at ACPI tables > won't be fixed by this patch anyway. I already submitted two different > approaches[1],[2]. > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-January/553098.html > [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-February/557248.html > > There can be yet another approach; we would add a list of reserved regions > to a dtb property, "linux,usable-memory-range". But I don't like it. (me neither) > What do you think? I prefer [2] above, wasn't there going to be another version, with the core EFI stuff split out? Thanks, James
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:01:52PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > Hi Akashi, > > Sorry I've been sluggish on this issue, > > On 05/04/18 03:42, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:53:32AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 02:32:49PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > >>> On 27/03/18 11:16, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:18:34AM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > >>>>> On 03/14/2018 01:59 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >>>>>> Currently, there is a inconsistent view between (A) and the mainline's: > >>>>>> see (A-1) and (B-1). If this is really a matter, I can fix it. > >>>>>> Kexec-tools can be easily modified to accept both formats, though. > >>> > >>> Ooer, what needs changing in kexec-tools? What happens if someone doesn't update > >>> userspace at the same time? > >> > >> Basically, changes that I made on /proc/iomem in my new format D were: > >> 1. to move NOMAP region entries, formerly named "reserved" and now named > >> "reserved (no map)", under System RAM > >> 2. to add new entries for firmware-reserved regions as "reserved" also > >> under System RAM > >> > >> On the other hand, current kexec-tools, in particular kexec command, > >> only scan top-level "System RAM" entries as well as "reserved" entries. > > as well as? I had few words here. The current kexec-tools assumes that "reserved" entries appear only at the top level. So, > Does this mean kexec will pick up the reserved region if its written as: > | 00001000-0009d7ff : System RAM > | 00001000-00001fff : reserved if this is the case, the range "0x1000-0x1fff" is added to an internal list of memory ranges but will later be *ignored* by locate_hole() function due to its memory type. That is, the range can potentially be overwritten by loaded kernel/initrd. > > >> So if someone doesn't update kexec-tools, secondary kernel may potentially > >> crash during boot time > > Doesn't this make it a kernel bug? This didn't happen before v4.14 because nomap > and kexec-don't-write-here were the same thing. Since f56ab9a5b73c they aren't, > as ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY is_usable_memory(). The memblock_reserve() is enough to > stop the kernel overwriting the region, but not to stop kexec placing the new > kernel over the top. > > (now I can't see how the efi memory map itself is reserved ... I thought that > was nomap too, but it looks like its just 'not mapped' when efi_init() is called) (I will check.) > > >> either because > >> a. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a NOMAP region > >> which are not suitable for usable memory, or > >> b. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a reserved region > >> whose contents can be overwritten. > >> > >> While we see (b) even today, (a) is a backward compatibility issue. > > (a) doesn't happen because request_standard_resources() checks > memblock_is_nomap(), and reports those regions as 'reserved'. I might have confused you. The assumption here was that we adopt format (D), where all NOMAP regions are sub nodes of "System RAM", but still use the current kexec-tools. As I said above, this will end up an un-expected behavior. > > [...] > > >>>>> I think we should preserve all the memblock_reserve'd regions. So +1 on this > >>>>> approach from my side. I believe it might help avoid issues we have seen in > >>>>> the past with 'kexec-tools' _incorrectly_ determining which regions to pick > >>>>> from the '/proc/iomem'. > >>>> > >>>> As I said in my reply to Ard's comment, I now know *overkill* is not a big > >>>> issue and I will go for this approach. > >>> > >>> /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved has all kinds of weird stuff in it, > >>> including some smaller-than-a-page reservations that appear to come from the > >>> percpu allocator. > >>> > >>> I agree it will make the implementation simpler, and reserving 'too much' isn't > >>> an issue. > >> > >> Are you suggesting that we should use /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved > >> without modifying current /proc/iomem? > >> (Note that, even in this approach, we need an user-space change.) > > Sorry for the late response: no. My point was memblock_reserve() is used for all > sorts of different things, most of which don't matter for kexec. Its > reservations are not always page-aligned. I understand. > > >> Hmm, overall, this approach will be preferable to format B/E. > > > > What is nice in this approach is that we don't have to make any change > > on kernel side. Now that I have a patch for kexec-tools, you can try: > > https://git.linaro.org/people/takahiro.akashi/kexec-tools.git resv_mem2 > > This requires user-space to mount debugfs too, which requires CONFIG_DEBUG_FS... Yes. > We can't expect user-space to upgrade to fix this issue. I'm not sure what you mean here; we can't fix the issue anyway without changing user-space/kexec-tools as kexec_load system call totally relies on parameters passed by kexec-tools. (The only difference is whether we need additional kernel changes or not.) > > > # I don't know yet whether people are happy with this fix, and also have > > kernel patches for my other approaches. They are neither not much > > complicated. > > I don't think we should fix this in userspace, exporting all the > memblock_reserved() regions as 'reserved' in /proc/iomem looks like the right > thing to do. Again, if you modify /proc/iomem, you have to update kexec-tools, too. > ah, you have patches, I've had a couple of attempts at this too... That's fine and it looks better than mine :) > > > On the other hand, kdump failure due to alignment fault at ACPI tables > > won't be fixed by this patch anyway. I already submitted two different > > approaches[1],[2]. > > > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-January/553098.html > > [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-February/557248.html > > > > There can be yet another approach; we would add a list of reserved regions > > to a dtb property, "linux,usable-memory-range". But I don't like it. > > (me neither) > > > What do you think? > > I prefer [2] above, I don't have a strong opinion here, but I like [1] because the kernel handles the memory in the same manner as prior kernels did. > wasn't there going to be another version, with the core EFI > stuff split out? ? I don't remember well ... Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI > > Thanks, > > James
Hi Akashi, On 16/04/18 11:08, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:01:52PM +0100, James Morse wrote: >> On 05/04/18 03:42, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:53:32AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>>> Basically, changes that I made on /proc/iomem in my new format D were: >>>> 1. to move NOMAP region entries, formerly named "reserved" and now named >>>> "reserved (no map)", under System RAM >>>> 2. to add new entries for firmware-reserved regions as "reserved" also >>>> under System RAM >>>> >>>> On the other hand, current kexec-tools, in particular kexec command, >>>> only scan top-level "System RAM" entries as well as "reserved" entries. >> >> as well as? > > I had few words here. > The current kexec-tools assumes that "reserved" entries appear only > at the top level. So, > >> Does this mean kexec will pick up the reserved region if its written as: >> | 00001000-0009d7ff : System RAM >> | 00001000-00001fff : reserved > > if this is the case, the range "0x1000-0x1fff" is added to an internal > list of memory ranges I found this in get_memory_ranges_iomem_cb()... > but will later be *ignored* by locate_hole() function > due to its memory type. Ugh. Great. > That is, the range can potentially be overwritten by loaded kernel/initrd. So two kernel bugs, one user-space bug, all conspiring. >>>> either because >>>> a. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a NOMAP region >>>> which are not suitable for usable memory, or >>>> b. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a reserved region >>>> whose contents can be overwritten. >>>> >>>> While we see (b) even today, (a) is a backward compatibility issue. >> >> (a) doesn't happen because request_standard_resources() checks >> memblock_is_nomap(), and reports those regions as 'reserved'. > > I might have confused you. The assumption here was that we adopt format (D), > where all NOMAP regions are sub nodes of "System RAM", but still use > the current kexec-tools. > As I said above, this will end up an un-expected behavior. I'd like to fix this without having to fix user-space at the same time. It looks like no-one else has second level reserved regions, so we can't blame kexec-tools for looking straight at them, then ignoring them. >> We can't expect user-space to upgrade to fix this issue. > > I'm not sure what you mean here; we can't fix the issue anyway > without changing user-space/kexec-tools as kexec_load system call totally > relies on parameters passed by kexec-tools. > (The only difference is whether we need additional kernel changes or not.) It looks like this was always broken because the efi memory map isn't listed as 'reserved' in /proc/iomem. The fallout for the new stuff is secondary. >>> # I don't know yet whether people are happy with this fix, and also have >>> kernel patches for my other approaches. They are neither not much >>> complicated. >> >> I don't think we should fix this in userspace, exporting all the >> memblock_reserved() regions as 'reserved' in /proc/iomem looks like the right >> thing to do. > > Again, if you modify /proc/iomem, you have to update kexec-tools, too. If we squash the memblock_reserved() stuff down so it appears as a top level 'reserved' region too, I don't think we do. This prevents the efi-memory-map being overwritten on kernels since kexec was merged. Its horribly fiddly to do this. The kernel code/data are special reserved regions that we already describe as a subset of system-ram, even though they are both also fragments of a bigger memblock_reserved() block. While we can walk memblock for regions that aren't reserved, allocating memory in the loop changes what is reserved. That one O(N) walk ends up being four... I'm almost done tearing my hair out, I should have a working patch soon... >> wasn't there going to be another version, with the core EFI >> stuff split out? > > ? I don't remember well ... https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/1/496 Thanks, James
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 05:08:57PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > Hi Akashi, > > On 16/04/18 11:08, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:01:52PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > >> On 05/04/18 03:42, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >>> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:53:32AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >>>> Basically, changes that I made on /proc/iomem in my new format D were: > >>>> 1. to move NOMAP region entries, formerly named "reserved" and now named > >>>> "reserved (no map)", under System RAM > >>>> 2. to add new entries for firmware-reserved regions as "reserved" also > >>>> under System RAM > >>>> > >>>> On the other hand, current kexec-tools, in particular kexec command, > >>>> only scan top-level "System RAM" entries as well as "reserved" entries. > >> > >> as well as? > > > > I had few words here. > > The current kexec-tools assumes that "reserved" entries appear only > > at the top level. So, > > > >> Does this mean kexec will pick up the reserved region if its written as: > >> | 00001000-0009d7ff : System RAM > >> | 00001000-00001fff : reserved > > > > if this is the case, the range "0x1000-0x1fff" is added to an internal > > list of memory ranges > > I found this in get_memory_ranges_iomem_cb()... > > > > but will later be *ignored* by locate_hole() function > > due to its memory type. > > Ugh. Great. > > > > That is, the range can potentially be overwritten by loaded kernel/initrd. > > So two kernel bugs, one user-space bug, all conspiring. > > > >>>> either because > >>>> a. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a NOMAP region > >>>> which are not suitable for usable memory, or > >>>> b. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a reserved region > >>>> whose contents can be overwritten. > >>>> > >>>> While we see (b) even today, (a) is a backward compatibility issue. > >> > >> (a) doesn't happen because request_standard_resources() checks > >> memblock_is_nomap(), and reports those regions as 'reserved'. > > > > I might have confused you. The assumption here was that we adopt format (D), > > where all NOMAP regions are sub nodes of "System RAM", but still use > > the current kexec-tools. > > As I said above, this will end up an un-expected behavior. > > I'd like to fix this without having to fix user-space at the same time. It looks > like no-one else has second level reserved regions, This was my assumption when I sent out a patch to kexec-tools. > so we can't blame > kexec-tools for looking straight at them, then ignoring them. > > > >> We can't expect user-space to upgrade to fix this issue. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean here; we can't fix the issue anyway > > without changing user-space/kexec-tools as kexec_load system call totally > > relies on parameters passed by kexec-tools. > > (The only difference is whether we need additional kernel changes or not.) > > It looks like this was always broken because the efi memory map isn't listed as > 'reserved' in /proc/iomem. The fallout for the new stuff is secondary. > > > >>> # I don't know yet whether people are happy with this fix, and also have > >>> kernel patches for my other approaches. They are neither not much > >>> complicated. > >> > >> I don't think we should fix this in userspace, exporting all the > >> memblock_reserved() regions as 'reserved' in /proc/iomem looks like the right > >> thing to do. > > > > Again, if you modify /proc/iomem, you have to update kexec-tools, too. > > If we squash the memblock_reserved() stuff down so it appears as a top level > 'reserved' region too, I don't think we do. If I correctly understand, you're talking about my format (E). As I said, it will fix the issue without modifying user-space, but || This does not only look quite noisy but also ignores the fact that || reserved regions are part of System RAM (or memblock.memory). > This prevents the efi-memory-map > being overwritten on kernels since kexec was merged. > > Its horribly fiddly to do this. The kernel code/data are special reserved > regions that we already describe as a subset of system-ram, even though they are > both also fragments of a bigger memblock_reserved() block. Actually, we don't have to avoid kernel code/data regions as copying loaded data to the final destinations will be done at the very end of kexec. > While we can walk memblock for regions that aren't reserved, allocating memory > in the loop changes what is reserved. That one O(N) walk ends up being four... At most O(n^2)? Thanks, -Takhairo AKASHI > I'm almost done tearing my hair out, I should have a working patch soon... > > > >> wasn't there going to be another version, with the core EFI > >> stuff split out? > > > > ? I don't remember well ... > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/1/496 > > > Thanks, > > James >
Hi Akashi, On 25/04/18 10:20, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 05:08:57PM +0100, James Morse wrote: >> On 16/04/18 11:08, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:01:52PM +0100, James Morse wrote: >>>> On 05/04/18 03:42, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:53:32AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>>>>> either because >>>>>> a. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a NOMAP region >>>>>> which are not suitable for usable memory, or >>>>>> b. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a reserved region >>>>>> whose contents can be overwritten. >>>>>> >>>>>> While we see (b) even today, (a) is a backward compatibility issue. >>>> >>>> (a) doesn't happen because request_standard_resources() checks >>>> memblock_is_nomap(), and reports those regions as 'reserved'. >>> >>> I might have confused you. The assumption here was that we adopt format (D), >>> where all NOMAP regions are sub nodes of "System RAM", but still use >>> the current kexec-tools. >>> As I said above, this will end up an un-expected behavior. >> >> I'd like to fix this without having to fix user-space at the same time. It looks >> like no-one else has second level reserved regions, > > This was my assumption when I sent out a patch to kexec-tools. But this would still leave user-space that isn't updated broken. >>>>> # I don't know yet whether people are happy with this fix, and also have >>>>> kernel patches for my other approaches. They are neither not much >>>>> complicated. >>>> >>>> I don't think we should fix this in userspace, exporting all the >>>> memblock_reserved() regions as 'reserved' in /proc/iomem looks like the right >>>> thing to do. >>> >>> Again, if you modify /proc/iomem, you have to update kexec-tools, too. >> >> If we squash the memblock_reserved() stuff down so it appears as a top level >> 'reserved' region too, I don't think we do. > > If I correctly understand, you're talking about my format (E). > As I said, it will fix the issue without modifying user-space, but > > || This does not only look quite noisy but also ignores the fact that > || reserved regions are part of System RAM (or memblock.memory). I agree its noisy, there are significantly more 'reserved' areas, but these are all either nomap or memblock_reserved(). Why does it matter if a reserved-region is nomap or memblock_reserved()? Any new kernel will learn the difference from the EFI memory map and make its own decisions. Kexec-tools only needs to know what it can overwrite without clobbering important data like the UEFI memory map, or the APCI tables covered by the linear map. >> This prevents the efi-memory-map >> being overwritten on kernels since kexec was merged. >> >> Its horribly fiddly to do this. The kernel code/data are special reserved >> regions that we already describe as a subset of system-ram, even though they are >> both also fragments of a bigger memblock_reserved() block. > > Actually, we don't have to avoid kernel code/data regions as copying > loaded data to the final destinations will be done at the very end of kexec. For kexec yes, but that is the existing format of the file, which we shouldn't change, otherwise we break something else. >> While we can walk memblock for regions that aren't reserved, allocating memory >> in the loop changes what is reserved. That one O(N) walk ends up being four... > > At most O(n^2)? I think for_each_free_mem_range() is smart enough not to do that. Patch incoming... Thanks, James
James, On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 02:22:07PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > Hi Akashi, > > On 25/04/18 10:20, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 05:08:57PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > >> On 16/04/18 11:08, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:01:52PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > >>>> On 05/04/18 03:42, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:53:32AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >>>>>> either because > >>>>>> a. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a NOMAP region > >>>>>> which are not suitable for usable memory, or > >>>>>> b. new kernel (or initrd/dtb) may have been allocated on a reserved region > >>>>>> whose contents can be overwritten. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> While we see (b) even today, (a) is a backward compatibility issue. > >>>> > >>>> (a) doesn't happen because request_standard_resources() checks > >>>> memblock_is_nomap(), and reports those regions as 'reserved'. > >>> > >>> I might have confused you. The assumption here was that we adopt format (D), > >>> where all NOMAP regions are sub nodes of "System RAM", but still use > >>> the current kexec-tools. > >>> As I said above, this will end up an un-expected behavior. > >> > >> I'd like to fix this without having to fix user-space at the same time. It looks > >> like no-one else has second level reserved regions, > > > > This was my assumption when I sent out a patch to kexec-tools. > > But this would still leave user-space that isn't updated broken. > > > >>>>> # I don't know yet whether people are happy with this fix, and also have > >>>>> kernel patches for my other approaches. They are neither not much > >>>>> complicated. > >>>> > >>>> I don't think we should fix this in userspace, exporting all the > >>>> memblock_reserved() regions as 'reserved' in /proc/iomem looks like the right > >>>> thing to do. > >>> > >>> Again, if you modify /proc/iomem, you have to update kexec-tools, too. > >> > >> If we squash the memblock_reserved() stuff down so it appears as a top level > >> 'reserved' region too, I don't think we do. > > > > If I correctly understand, you're talking about my format (E). > > As I said, it will fix the issue without modifying user-space, but > > > > || This does not only look quite noisy but also ignores the fact that > > || reserved regions are part of System RAM (or memblock.memory). > > I agree its noisy, there are significantly more 'reserved' areas, but these are > all either nomap or memblock_reserved(). > > Why does it matter if a reserved-region is nomap or memblock_reserved()? Any new > kernel will learn the difference from the EFI memory map and make its own decisions. Yeah, kernel can do (though kernel won't look though system resources list for this purpose anyway), what about kexec-like user applications? It may want to seek /proc/iomem to identify all the *usable* memory on the system, that is "System RAM", but doesn't care whether some range is reserved or not (for some reason) yet does care !NOMAP. > Kexec-tools only needs to know what it can overwrite without clobbering > important data like the UEFI memory map, or the APCI tables covered by the > linear map. > > > >> This prevents the efi-memory-map > >> being overwritten on kernels since kexec was merged. > >> > >> Its horribly fiddly to do this. The kernel code/data are special reserved > >> regions that we already describe as a subset of system-ram, even though they are > >> both also fragments of a bigger memblock_reserved() block. > > > > Actually, we don't have to avoid kernel code/data regions as copying > > loaded data to the final destinations will be done at the very end of kexec. > > For kexec yes, but that is the existing format of the file, which we shouldn't > change, otherwise we break something else. One trivial downside in this approach is that a secondary kernel will be loaded at an address different from the one of current kernel. While it is sane, it looks a bit odd that, every time kexec'ed, a new kernel (code/data) is located back and forth :) > > >> While we can walk memblock for regions that aren't reserved, allocating memory > >> in the loop changes what is reserved. That one O(N) walk ends up being four... > > > > At most O(n^2)? > > I think for_each_free_mem_range() is smart enough not to do that. Patch incoming... Yes, my v9 of kexec_file patch makes use of it. Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI > > Thanks, > > James
Hi Akashi, On 26/04/18 08:40, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 02:22:07PM +0100, James Morse wrote: >> On 25/04/18 10:20, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 05:08:57PM +0100, James Morse wrote: >>>> If we squash the memblock_reserved() stuff down so it appears as a top level >>>> 'reserved' region too, I don't think we do. >>> >>> If I correctly understand, you're talking about my format (E). >>> As I said, it will fix the issue without modifying user-space, but >>> >>> || This does not only look quite noisy but also ignores the fact that >>> || reserved regions are part of System RAM (or memblock.memory). >> >> I agree its noisy, there are significantly more 'reserved' areas, but these are >> all either nomap or memblock_reserved(). >> >> Why does it matter if a reserved-region is nomap or memblock_reserved()? Any new >> kernel will learn the difference from the EFI memory map and make its own decisions. > > Yeah, kernel can do (though kernel won't look though system resources list > for this purpose anyway), what about kexec-like user applications? > It may want to seek /proc/iomem to identify all the *usable* memory on > the system, that is "System RAM", but doesn't care whether some range is > reserved or not (for some reason) yet does care !NOMAP. Do you have an example application? This would have to be a program digging in /dev/mem where it wants to touch memory the kernel has reserved, but doesn't want to receive a signal if it touches memory that's nomap. This doesn't seem a likely use-case. We could change the names for the memblock_reserved()/nomap entries, but as kexec-tools spots 'reserved' and almost does the right thing, I kept it as it is. >>>> This prevents the efi-memory-map >>>> being overwritten on kernels since kexec was merged. >>>> >>>> Its horribly fiddly to do this. The kernel code/data are special reserved >>>> regions that we already describe as a subset of system-ram, even though they are >>>> both also fragments of a bigger memblock_reserved() block. >>> >>> Actually, we don't have to avoid kernel code/data regions as copying >>> loaded data to the final destinations will be done at the very end of kexec. >> >> For kexec yes, but that is the existing format of the file, which we shouldn't >> change, otherwise we break something else. > > One trivial downside in this approach is that a secondary kernel will be > loaded at an address different from the one of current kernel. > While it is sane, it looks a bit odd that, every time kexec'ed, a new> kernel (code/data) is located back and forth :) Yes, but all versions of the kernel that support kexec will be quite happy with this. The memory below the kernel could be re-used since KASLR support was merged before kexec. I was more worried that the extra fragmentation would cause kexec-tools to stop searching early, as it seems to have a #defined'd limit of how much of that file it will parse. But, this would be an existing bug, because there could be many nomap regions up-front before any large-enough chunk of system-ram appears. Thanks, James
===8<=== diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c index 30ad2f085d1f..feda5cbdc6bf 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c @@ -214,13 +214,8 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) for_each_memblock(memory, region) { res = alloc_bootmem_low(sizeof(*res)); - if (memblock_is_nomap(region)) { - res->name = "reserved"; - res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM; - } else { - res->name = "System RAM"; - res->flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; - } + res->name = "System RAM"; + res->flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; res->start = __pfn_to_phys(memblock_region_memory_base_pfn(region)); res->end = __pfn_to_phys(memblock_region_memory_end_pfn(region)) - 1; @@ -239,6 +234,9 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) request_resource(res, &crashk_res); #endif } + + /* Add firmware-reserved memory */ + efi_arch_request_resources(); } u64 __cpu_logical_map[NR_CPUS] = { [0 ... NR_CPUS-1] = INVALID_HWID }; diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c index 80d1a885def5..308143e69db4 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ #define pr_fmt(fmt) "efi: " fmt +#include <linux/bootmem.h> #include <linux/efi.h> #include <linux/init.h> +#include <linux/ioport.h> #include <linux/memblock.h> #include <linux/mm_types.h> #include <linux/of.h> @@ -280,3 +282,97 @@ static int __init register_gop_device(void) return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(pd); } subsys_initcall(register_gop_device); + +static unsigned long __init efi_memattr_to_iores_type(u64 addr) +{ + if (efi_mem_attributes(addr) & + (EFI_MEMORY_WB|EFI_MEMORY_WT|EFI_MEMORY_WC)) + return IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM; + else + return IORESOURCE_MEM; +} + +static unsigned long __init efi_type_to_iores_desc(u64 addr) +{ + /* TODO */ + return IORES_DESC_NONE; +} + +static struct resource * __init _efi_arch_request_resource(u64 start, u64 end, + char *name, struct resource *prev) +{ + struct resource *conflict, *res; + + res = alloc_bootmem_low(sizeof(*res)); + + res->start = start; + res->end = end; + res->flags = efi_memattr_to_iores_type(res->start); + res->desc = efi_type_to_iores_desc(res->start); + res->name = name; + + conflict = request_resource_conflict(&iomem_resource, res); + if (conflict) { + if (prev && (prev->parent == conflict) && + ((prev->end + 1) == start)) { + /* merge consecutive regions */ + adjust_resource(prev, prev->start, + end - prev->start + 1); + free_bootmem((unsigned long)res, sizeof(*res)); + res = prev; + } else + insert_resource(conflict, res); + } + + return res; +} + +/* Kexec expects those resources to be preserved */ +void __init efi_arch_request_resources(void) +{ + struct resource *res = NULL; + efi_memory_desc_t *md; + u64 paddr, npages, size; + + /* EFI Memory Map */ + /* FIXME */ + _efi_arch_request_resource(efi.memmap.phys_map, + efi.memmap.phys_map + + efi.memmap.desc_size * efi.memmap.nr_map - 1, + "EFI Memory Map", res); + + /* generic EFI Configuration Tables */ + efi_request_config_table_resources(_efi_arch_request_resource); + + /* architecture-specifc Configuration Tables */ + if (screen_info.lfb_size) + _efi_arch_request_resource(screen_info.lfb_base, + screen_info.lfb_base + screen_info.lfb_size - 1, + "EFI Screen Info Table", res); + + /* architecture-specific EFI resources */ + /* FIXME */ + efi_memmap_install(efi.memmap.phys_map, efi.memmap.nr_map); + + res = NULL; + for_each_efi_memory_desc(md) { + paddr = md->phys_addr; + npages = md->num_pages; + + memrange_efi_to_native(&paddr, &npages); + size = npages << PAGE_SHIFT; + + if (is_memory(md)) { + if (!is_usable_memory(md)) + res = _efi_arch_request_resource(paddr, + paddr + size - 1, + "EFI Resources", res); + + if (md->type == EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY) + res = _efi_arch_request_resource(paddr, + paddr + size - 1, + "EFI Resources", res); + } + } + efi_memmap_unmap(); +} diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c index cd42f66a7c85..b13c9461278b 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c @@ -603,6 +603,33 @@ int __init efi_config_init(efi_config_table_type_t *arch_tables) return ret; } +void __init efi_request_config_table_resources(struct resource *(*fn)(u64 start, + u64 end, char *name, struct resource *prev)) +{ + struct resource *prev = NULL; + char *name = "EFI Configuration Tables"; + + if (efi.config_table_size) + prev = fn(efi.config_table, + efi.config_table + efi.config_table_size - 1, name, + prev); + + if (efi.mem_attr_table_size) + prev = fn(efi.mem_attr_table, + efi.mem_attr_table + efi.mem_attr_table_size - 1, name, + prev); + + if (efi.esrt_size) + prev = fn(efi.esrt, efi.esrt + efi.esrt_size - 1, name, prev); + + if (efi.tpm_log_size) + prev = fn(efi.tpm_log, efi.tpm_log + efi.tpm_log_size - 1, name, + prev); + + + /* TODO: BGRT */ +} + #ifdef CONFIG_EFI_VARS_MODULE static int __init efi_load_efivars(void) { diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c index c47e0c6ec00f..61f66c139afb 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c @@ -330,6 +330,7 @@ void __init efi_esrt_init(void) esrt_data = (phys_addr_t)efi.esrt; esrt_data_size = size; + efi.esrt_size = size; end = esrt_data + size; pr_info("Reserving ESRT space from %pa to %pa.\n", &esrt_data, &end); diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c index 8986757eafaf..dc2c7608793a 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ int __init efi_memattr_init(void) } tbl_size = sizeof(*tbl) + tbl->num_entries * tbl->desc_size; + efi.mem_attr_table_size = tbl_size; memblock_reserve(efi.mem_attr_table, tbl_size); set_bit(EFI_MEM_ATTR, &efi.flags); diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c index 0cbeb3d46b18..53cfb12513fa 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ int __init efi_tpm_eventlog_init(void) } tbl_size = sizeof(*log_tbl) + log_tbl->size; + efi.tpm_log_size = tbl_size; memblock_reserve(efi.tpm_log, tbl_size); early_memunmap(log_tbl, sizeof(*log_tbl)); return 0; diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h index f5083aa72eae..9c3f8d284b36 100644 --- a/include/linux/efi.h +++ b/include/linux/efi.h @@ -942,11 +942,15 @@ extern struct efi { unsigned long fw_vendor; /* fw_vendor */ unsigned long runtime; /* runtime table */ unsigned long config_table; /* config tables */ + unsigned long config_table_size; unsigned long esrt; /* ESRT table */ + unsigned long esrt_size; unsigned long properties_table; /* properties table */ unsigned long mem_attr_table; /* memory attributes table */ + unsigned long mem_attr_table_size; unsigned long rng_seed; /* UEFI firmware random seed */ unsigned long tpm_log; /* TPM2 Event Log table */ + unsigned long tpm_log_size; efi_get_time_t *get_time; efi_set_time_t *set_time; efi_get_wakeup_time_t *get_wakeup_time; @@ -980,6 +984,9 @@ efi_guid_to_str(efi_guid_t *guid, char *out) } extern void efi_init (void); +extern void efi_arch_request_resources(void); +extern void efi_request_config_table_resources(struct resource * + (*fn)(u64 start, u64 end, char *name, struct resource *prev)); extern void *efi_get_pal_addr (void); extern void efi_map_pal_code (void); extern void efi_memmap_walk (efi_freemem_callback_t callback, void *arg);
In the last couples of months, there were some problems reported [1],[2] around arm64 kexec/kdump. Where those phenomenon look different, the root cause would be that kexec/kdump doesn't take into account crucial "reserved" regions of system memory and unintentionally corrupts them. Given that kexec-tools looks for all the information by seeking the file, /proc/iomem, the first step to address said problems is to expand this file's format so that it will have enough information about system memory and its usage. Attached is my experimental code: With this patch applied, /proc/iomem sees something like the below: (format A) 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code 41040000-411e8fff : Kernel data 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel 58590000-585effff : EFI Resources 58700000-5871ffff : EFI Resources 58720000-58b5ffff : System RAM 58720000-58b5ffff : EFI Resources 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM 58b61018-58b61947 : EFI Memory Map 59a7b118-59a7b667 : EFI Configuration Tables 5be40000-5becffff : System RAM <== (A-1) 5be40000-5becffff : EFI Resources 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM 5bee0000-5bffffff : System RAM 5bee0000-5bffffff : EFI Resources 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 Meanwhile, the workaround I suggested in [3] gave us a simpler view: (format B) 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel 58590000-585effff : reserved 58700000-5871ffff : reserved 58720000-58b5ffff : reserved 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM 58b61000-58b61fff : reserved 59a7b318-59a7b867 : reserved 5be40000-5becffff : reserved <== (B-1) 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM 5bee0000-5bffffff : reserved 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM 5ec00000-5edfffff : reserved 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 Here all the regions to be protected are named just "reserved" whether they are NOMAP regions or simply-memblock_reserve'd. They are not very useful for anything but kexec/kdump which knows what they mean. Alternatively, we may want to give them more specific names, based on related efi memory map descriptors and else, that will characterize their contents: (format C) 40000000-5871ffff : System RAM 40080000-40f1ffff : Kernel code 41040000-411e9fff : Kernel data 54400000-583fffff : Crash kernel 58590000-585effff : ACPI Reclaim Memory 58700000-5871ffff : ACPI Reclaim Memory 58720000-58b5ffff : System RAM 58720000-5878ffff : Runtime Data 58790000-587dffff : Runtime Code 587e0000-5882ffff : Runtime Data 58830000-5887ffff : Runtime Code 58880000-588cffff : Runtime Data 588d0000-5891ffff : Runtime Code 58920000-5896ffff : Runtime Data 58970000-589bffff : Runtime Code 589c0000-58a5ffff : Runtime Data 58a60000-58abffff : Runtime Code 58ac0000-58b0ffff : Runtime Data 58b10000-58b5ffff : Runtime Code 58b60000-5be3ffff : System RAM 58b61000-58b61fff : EFI Memory Map 59a7b118-59a7b667 : EFI Memory Attributes Table 5be40000-5becffff : System RAM 5be40000-5becffff : Runtime Code 5bed0000-5bedffff : System RAM 5bee0000-5bffffff : System RAM 5bee0000-5bffffff : Runtime Data 5c000000-5fffffff : System RAM 8000000000-ffffffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00 I once created a patch for this format, but it looks quite noisy and names are a sort of mixture of memory attributes( ACPI Reclaim memory, Conventional Memory, Persistent Memory etc.) vs. function/usages ([Loader|Boot Service|Runtime] Code/Data). (As a matter of fact, (C-1) consists of various ACPI tables.) Anyhow, they seem not so useful for most of other applications. Those observations lead to format A, where some entries with the same attributes are squeezed into a single entry under a simple name if they are neighbouring. So my questions here are: 1. Which format, A, B, or C, is the most appropriate for the moment? or any other suggestions? Currently, there is a inconsistent view between (A) and the mainline's: see (A-1) and (B-1). If this is really a matter, I can fix it. Kexec-tools can be easily modified to accept both formats, though. 2. How should we determine which regions be exported in /proc/iomem? a. Trust all the memblock_reserve'd regions as my previous patch [3] does. As I said, it's a kind of "overkill." Some of regions, say fdt, are not required to be preserved across kexec. b. List regions separately and exhaustively later on at a single point as my patch attached does. I'm afraid of any possibility that some regions may be doubly counted, one from efi memory map search and another from other efi/acpi code (various type of "tables" in most cases). c. Expand efi_mem_reserve() with an argument of "resource descriptor" and replace memblock_reserve() in efi code wherever necessary so as to maintain an export list. efi_mem_reserve() was first introduced for specific needs at kexec on x86, but I believe that its coverage over efi code is far from perfect. [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-November/541831.html [2] http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1802.2/06745.html [3] http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1803.0/04658.html http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1803.0/04659.html -Takahiro AKASHI