On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:11:11AM -0500, Robin Holt wrote: > Russ, > > Can we open a bug for the BIOS folks and see if we can get this addressed? I already talked with them. It is not in an area that we normally change, so if there is a bug may be in the Intel reference code. More investigation is needed to track down the actual problem, and that could take help from Intel. Regardless of that, it is a kernel patch that triggers the problem. This isn't the first time a kernel change does the "right thing" but trips across questionable bios/EFI/bootloader implementation. That still makes it a kernel bug. I'm still digging to better understand the root problem. > Robin > > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 08:43:31AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Thu, 23 May, at 03:32:34PM, Russ Anderson wrote: > > > efi: mem127: type=4, attr=0xf, range=[0x000000006bb22000-0x000000007ca9c000) (271MB) > > > > EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_CODE > > > > > efi: mem133: type=5, attr=0x800000000000000f, range=[0x000000007daff000-0x000000007dbff000) (1MB) > > > > EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE > > > > > EFI Variables Facility v0.08 2004-May-17 > > > BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 000000007ca95b10 > > > IP: [<ffff88007dbf2140>] 0xffff88007dbf213f > > > > This... > > > > > Call Trace: > > > [<ffffffff81139a34>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x154/0x2f0 > > > [<ffffffff81174f7d>] ? alloc_page_interleave+0x9d/0xa0 > > > [<ffffffff812fe192>] ? put_dec+0x72/0x90 > > > [<ffffffff812f6d53>] ? ida_get_new_above+0xb3/0x220 > > > [<ffffffff812f6174>] ? sub_alloc+0x74/0x1d0 > > > [<ffffffff812f6174>] ? sub_alloc+0x74/0x1d0 > > > [<ffffffff812f6d53>] ? ida_get_new_above+0xb3/0x220 > > > [<ffffffff814c8cc0>] ? create_efivars_bin_attributes+0x150/0x150 > > > > is junk on the stack. > > > > > [<ffffffff810499b3>] ? efi_call3+0x43/0x80 > > > [<ffffffff810492a7>] ? virt_efi_get_next_variable+0x47/0x1c0 > > > [<ffffffff814c8cc0>] ? create_efivars_bin_attributes+0x150/0x150 > > > [<ffffffff814c7b55>] ? efivar_init+0xd5/0x390 > > > [<ffffffff814c8ae0>] ? efivar_update_sysfs_entries+0x90/0x90 > > > [<ffffffff812f906b>] ? kobject_uevent+0xb/0x10 > > > [<ffffffff812f812b>] ? kset_register+0x5b/0x70 > > > [<ffffffff814c8cc0>] ? create_efivars_bin_attributes+0x150/0x150 > > > [<ffffffff814c8d47>] ? efivars_sysfs_init+0x87/0xf0 > > > [<ffffffff8100032a>] ? do_one_initcall+0x15a/0x1b0 > > > [<ffffffff81a17831>] ? do_basic_setup+0xad/0xce > > > [<ffffffff81a17ae3>] ? kernel_init_freeable+0x291/0x291 > > > [<ffffffff81a3708a>] ? sched_init_smp+0x15b/0x162 > > > [<ffffffff81a17a5f>] ? kernel_init_freeable+0x20d/0x291 > > > [<ffffffff81601eb0>] ? rest_init+0x80/0x80 > > > [<ffffffff81601ebe>] ? kernel_init+0xe/0x180 > > > [<ffffffff8162179c>] ? ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 > > > [<ffffffff81601eb0>] ? rest_init+0x80/0x80 > > > > Here's the real call stack leading up to the crash. > > > > What appears to be happening is that your the EFI runtime services code > > is calling into the EFI boot services code, which is definitely a bug in > > your firmware because we're at runtime, but we've seen other machines > > that do similar things so we usually handle it just fine. However, what > > makes your case different, and the reason you see the above splat, is > > that it's using the physical address of the EFI boot services region, > > not the virtual one we setup with SetVirtualAddressMap(). Which is a > > second firmware bug. Again, we have seen other machines that access > > physical addresses after SetVirtualAddressMap(), but until now we > > haven't had any non-optional code that triggered them. > > > > The only reason I can see that the offending commit would introduce this > > problem is because it calls QueryVariableInfo() at boot time. I notice > > that your machine is an SGI UV one, is there any chance you could get a > > firmware fix for this? If possible, it would be also good to confirm > > that it's this chunk of code in setup_efi_vars(), > > > > status = efi_call_phys4(sys_table->runtime->query_variable_info, > > EFI_VARIABLE_NON_VOLATILE | > > EFI_VARIABLE_BOOTSERVICE_ACCESS | > > EFI_VARIABLE_RUNTIME_ACCESS, &store_size, > > &remaining_size, &var_size); > > > > that later makes GetNextVariable() jump to the physical address of the > > EFI Boot Services region. Because if not, we need to do some more > > digging. > > > > Borislav, how are your 1:1 mapping patches coming along? In theory, once > > those are merged we can gracefully workaround these kinds of issues. > > > > -- > > Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Russ Anderson, OS RAS/Partitioning Project Lead SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc rja@xxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
