Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v6 00/32] EFI and ACPI support for arm64

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




> On Jun 12, 2023, at 2:52 AM, Nikos Nikoleris <nikos.nikoleris@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 12/06/2023 08:52, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 01:32:59AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On May 30, 2023, at 9:08 AM, Nikos Nikoleris <nikos.nikoleris@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello,
>>>> 
>>>> This series adds initial support for building arm64 tests as EFI
>>>> apps and running them under QEMU. Much like x86_64, we import external
>>>> dependencies from gnu-efi and adapt them to work with types and other
>>>> assumptions from kvm-unit-tests. In addition, this series adds support
>>>> for enumerating parts of the system using ACPI.
>>> 
>>> Just an issue I encountered, which I am not sure is arm64 specific:
>>> 
>>> All the printf’s in efi_main() are before current_thread_info() is
>>> initialized (or even memset’d to zero, as done in setup_efi).
>>> 
>>> But printf() calls puts() which checks if mmu_enabled(). And
>>> mmu_enabled() uses is_user() and current_thread_info()->cpu, both
>>> of which read uninitialized data from current_thread_info().
>>> 
>>> IOW: Any printf in efi_main() can cause a crash.
>>> 
>> Nice catch, Nadav. Nikos, shouldn't we drop the memset() in setup_efi and
>> put a zero_range call, similar to the one in arm/cstart64.S which zero's
>> the thread-info area, in arm/efi/crt0-efi-aarch64.S?
> 
> While I haven't run into any problems with this in this series, I had in a previous version and back then the solution was this patch:
> 
> 993c37be - arm/arm64: Zero BSS and stack at startup
> 
> So I agree we should drop the memset and call some macro like zero_range in arm/efi/crt0-efi-aarch64.S.
> 
> Let me know if you want me to send a patch for this.

Thanks. I am still struggling to run the tests on my environment. Why the
heck frame-pointers are disabled on arm64? Perhaps I’ll send my patch to
enable them (and add one on exception handling).

Anyhow, I was wondering, since it was not clearly mentioned in the
cover-letter: which tests were run on what environment? Did they all pass
or are there still some open issues?

[ I ask for my enabling efforts. Not blaming or anything. ]

Thanks again for the hard work, Nikos (and Andrew).





[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux