On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 03:28:50PM -0400, Mark Salter wrote:
> > > It doesn't filter them to keep them around, it filters them to avoid
> > > calling free_bootmem_late() with an invalid address. If there are UEFI
> > > regions below the kernel, we don't want to call memblock_reserve() or
> > > free_bootmem_late() for them.
> >
> > Then why not just flip things around and do like the arm port and only
> > add the blocks we actually want to keep around to begin with?
>
> I'd rather leave it as-is with everything which can be covered by the
> normal kernel mem mapping.
>
> > > > > > (And I do agree with Mark R here - let's not work around bugs that
> > > > > > don't exist yet.)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure if they still exist or not, but on Foundation, I saw a
> > > > > crash in SetVirtualAddressMap unless I kept BS regions around.
> > > >
> > > > For the topic of keeping boot services code around:
> > > > I did also see issues with not keeping boot services regions on v7 -
> > > > ages ago. I have not seen it this year, and I _really_ want to see if
> > > > any such issues resurface.
> > >
> > > My view is that a problem has been seen in the past with tianocore for
> > > arm64. There is no harm in delaying the freeing of BS regions.
> >
> > There is a huge harm.
>
> huge? really?
Yes. It is setting a precedent that "we will try to second-guess how
you might code incorrectly and just deal with it - in those few places
where this is possible, and not in others".
> > > The
> > > memory becomes usable for general kernel use at early_initcall time.
> > > This issue has also been seen with x86 firmware and some of those same
> > > vendors will be providing arm64 firmware.
> >
> > This issue has been seen with x86 firmware because in the early days
> > (last year) noone bothered validating anything other than CSM. They no
> > longer have that luxury.
> >
> > The Linux kernel, currently being the most avid tester of existing
> > arm64 UEFI firmware, falling over itself to cater for hypothetical
> > broken implementations pretty much guarantees the situation will end
> > up just as bad as it ever was on x86 - without us even having CSM.
>
> It is hardly falling over itself. And if the problem is hypothetical,
> why is this in the arm32 EFI patches:
>
> +/*
> + * If you need to (temporarily) support buggy firmware, set to 0.
> + */
> +#define DISCARD_BOOT_SERVICES_REGIONS 1
Because in the early days we did indeed have such an issue.
Had we not had this enabled, we never would have spotted it.
Felt useful to have around _and_disabled_ in case we ever run into
anything like it again. Haven't happened for over a year.
> > > The problem isn't reproducible
> > > now, but I'm not sure if there was a bug fix for it or if it just went
> > > underground for some reason. Kernel boot may succeed by chance if some
> > > needed BS memory isn't reused by kernel.
> >
> > And it may succeed by chance anyway.
> > I'm not saying we won't see broken firmware - I'm saying that this is
> > the window we have to try to _help_ people (and ourselves) by letting
> > broken firmware fail - before it happens in the data centre.
>
> In this particular case, we are removing a workaround to a problem
> which has been seen in the past. So we would open a door to allow
> this particular problem to reach the data center.
No, we are removing a workaround to a problem that has possibly been
seen in the past, not sure of the circumstances, not sure if it was a
model cache management bug.
A UEFI implementation that does not keep track of local and global
symbols is just as likely to not update a pointer between runtime
services regions as it is to not stop using boot services regions
after ExitBootServices(). Keeping boot services regions around does
not solve the problem - it slightly reduces the likelihood of it
manifesting.
> > > > So post-3.16 I would quite like to see the
> > > > call to free_boot_services() moved earlier to flush out any such
> > > > issues before we see large-scale deployments.
> > >
> > > You can just get rid of it altogether:
> >
> > Well, clearly, that would not be my preference :)
>
> Why not? There's no point in keeping it if it isn't wanted/needed. Or at
> least make it optional with a #define as in arm32. Anyway, my opinion is
> known and I'm really not that attached to the code. So, if someone wants
> to submit a patch to take it out, I'm not going to make a fuss over it.
I'll try to get that together tomorrow.
I certainly don't mind keeping a #define around (and it might enable
more code sharing arm/arm64).
/
Leif
--
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
