On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 at 20:06, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 5:55 PM KobaK <kobak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > PRMT needs to find the correct type of block to > > translate the PA-VA mapping for EFI runtime services. > > > > The issue arises because the PRMT is finding a block of > > type EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY, which is not appropriate for > > runtime services as described in Section 2.2.2 (Runtime > > Services) of the UEFI Specification [1]. Since the PRM handler is > > a type of runtime service, this causes an exception > > when the PRM handler is called. > > > > [Firmware Bug]: Unable to handle paging request in EFI runtime service > > WARNING: CPU: 22 PID: 4330 at drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c:341 > > __efi_queue_work+0x11c/0x170 > > Call trace: > > __efi_queue_work+0x11c/0x170 > > efi_call_acpi_prm_handler+0x68/0xd0 > > acpi_platformrt_space_handler+0x198/0x258 > > acpi_ev_address_space_dispatch+0x144/0x388 > > acpi_ex_access_region+0x9c/0x118 > > acpi_ex_write_serial_bus+0xc4/0x218 > > acpi_ex_write_data_to_field+0x168/0x218 > > acpi_ex_store_object_to_node+0x1a8/0x258 > > acpi_ex_store+0xec/0x330 > > acpi_ex_opcode_1A_1T_1R+0x15c/0x618 > > acpi_ds_exec_end_op+0x274/0x548 > > acpi_ps_parse_loop+0x10c/0x6b8 > > acpi_ps_parse_aml+0x140/0x3b0 > > acpi_ps_execute_method+0x12c/0x2a0 > > acpi_ns_evaluate+0x210/0x310 > > acpi_evaluate_object+0x178/0x358 > > acpi_proc_write+0x1a8/0x8a0 [acpi_call] > > proc_reg_write+0xcc/0x150 > > vfs_write+0xd8/0x380 > > ksys_write+0x70/0x120 > > __arm64_sys_write+0x24/0x48 > > invoke_syscall.constprop.0+0x80/0xf8 > > do_el0_svc+0x50/0x110 > > el0_svc+0x48/0x1d0 > > el0t_64_sync_handler+0x15c/0x178 > > el0t_64_sync+0x1a8/0x1b0 > > > > Find a block with specific type to fix this. > > prmt find a block with EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA for prm handler and > > find a block with EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE for prm context. > > If no suitable block is found, a warning message will be prompted > > but the procedue continues to manage the next prm handler. > > However, if the prm handler is actullay called without proper allocation, > > it would result in a failure during error handling. > > > > By using the correct memory types for runtime services, > > Ensure that the PRM handler and the context are > > properly mapped in the virtual address space during runtime, > > preventing the paging request error. > > > > [1] https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI_Spec_2_10_Aug29.pdf > > I need input from EFI people on this, so can you please resend the > patch with a CC to linux-efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? > > > Fixes: cefc7ca46235 ("ACPI: PRM: implement OperationRegion handler for the PlatformRtMechanism subtype") > > Signed-off-by: KobaK <kobak@xxxxxxxxxx> Please use your full name. > > Reviewed-by: Matthew R. Ochs <mochs@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > V2: > > 1. format the changelog and add more about error handling. > > 2. replace goto > > V3: Warn if parts of handler are missed during va-pa translating. > > V4: Fix the 0day > > V5: Fix typo and pr_warn warning > > --- > > drivers/acpi/prmt.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/prmt.c b/drivers/acpi/prmt.c > > index c78453c74ef5..cd4a7f5491d6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/prmt.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/prmt.c > > @@ -72,15 +72,17 @@ struct prm_module_info { > > struct prm_handler_info handlers[] __counted_by(handler_count); > > }; > > > > -static u64 efi_pa_va_lookup(u64 pa) > > +static u64 efi_pa_va_lookup(u64 pa, u32 type) > > { > > efi_memory_desc_t *md; > > u64 pa_offset = pa & ~PAGE_MASK; > > u64 page = pa & PAGE_MASK; > > > > for_each_efi_memory_desc(md) { > > - if (md->phys_addr < pa && pa < md->phys_addr + PAGE_SIZE * md->num_pages) > > + if ((md->type == type) && > > + (md->phys_addr < pa && pa < md->phys_addr + PAGE_SIZE * md->num_pages)) { > > return pa_offset + md->virt_addr + page - md->phys_addr; > > + } > > } > > > > return 0; > > @@ -148,9 +150,18 @@ acpi_parse_prmt(union acpi_subtable_headers *header, const unsigned long end) > > th = &tm->handlers[cur_handler]; > > > > guid_copy(&th->guid, (guid_t *)handler_info->handler_guid); > > - th->handler_addr = (void *)efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->handler_address); > > - th->static_data_buffer_addr = efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->static_data_buffer_address); > > - th->acpi_param_buffer_addr = efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->acpi_param_buffer_address); > > + th->handler_addr = > > + (void *)efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->handler_address, EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE); Wouldn't it make more sense to test the EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME attribute rather than expecting/assuming a certain memory type in each case? That attribute is precisely what controls whether or not a region has been remapped into the firmware's page tables. > > + th->static_data_buffer_addr = > > + efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->static_data_buffer_address, EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA); > > + th->acpi_param_buffer_addr = > > + efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->acpi_param_buffer_address, EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA); > > + > > + if (!th->handler_addr || !th->static_data_buffer_addr || !th->acpi_param_buffer_addr) > > + pr_warn( > > + "Idx: %llu, Parts of handler(GUID: %pUL) are missed, handler_addr %p, data_addr %p, param_addr %p", Please improve this diagnostic: 'are missed' is not very helpful. > > + cur_handler, &th->guid, th->handler_addr, > > + (void *)th->static_data_buffer_addr, (void *)th->acpi_param_buffer_addr); > > } while (++cur_handler < tm->handler_count && (handler_info = get_next_handler(handler_info))); > > > > return 0; > > @@ -250,8 +261,16 @@ static acpi_status acpi_platformrt_space_handler(u32 function, > > > > handler = find_prm_handler(&buffer->handler_guid); > > module = find_prm_module(&buffer->handler_guid); > > - if (!handler || !module) > > - goto invalid_guid; > > + if (!handler || !module) { > > + buffer->prm_status = PRM_HANDLER_GUID_NOT_FOUND; > > + return AE_OK; > > + } > > + > > + if (!handler->handler_addr || !handler->static_data_buffer_addr || > > + !handler->acpi_param_buffer_addr) { > > + buffer->prm_status = PRM_HANDLER_ERROR; > > + return AE_OK; > > + } > > > > ACPI_COPY_NAMESEG(context.signature, "PRMC"); > > context.revision = 0x0; > > @@ -274,8 +293,10 @@ static acpi_status acpi_platformrt_space_handler(u32 function, > > case PRM_CMD_START_TRANSACTION: > > > > module = find_prm_module(&buffer->handler_guid); > > - if (!module) > > - goto invalid_guid; > > + if (!module) { > > + buffer->prm_status = PRM_HANDLER_GUID_NOT_FOUND; > > + return AE_OK; > > + } What is the reason for this change, and the ones down below? > > > > if (module->updatable) > > module->updatable = false; > > @@ -286,8 +307,10 @@ static acpi_status acpi_platformrt_space_handler(u32 function, > > case PRM_CMD_END_TRANSACTION: > > > > module = find_prm_module(&buffer->handler_guid); > > - if (!module) > > - goto invalid_guid; > > + if (!module) { > > + buffer->prm_status = PRM_HANDLER_GUID_NOT_FOUND; > > + return AE_OK; > > + } > > > > if (module->updatable) > > buffer->prm_status = UPDATE_UNLOCK_WITHOUT_LOCK; > > @@ -302,10 +325,6 @@ static acpi_status acpi_platformrt_space_handler(u32 function, > > } > > > > return AE_OK; > > - > > -invalid_guid: > > - buffer->prm_status = PRM_HANDLER_GUID_NOT_FOUND; > > - return AE_OK; > > } > > > > void __init init_prmt(void) > > -- > > 2.43.0 > > > > >
