On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 at 05:45, Koba Ko <kobak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 10/3/24 05:11, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > > > > 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. > Hi Ardb, > Sure, will update. > > > >>> 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. > Please see the below > > > >>> + 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. > > Are these good for you > I /think/ it looks ok but please resend it as a proper patch - the whitespace got mangled and it is difficult to read. > ``` > > -static u64 efi_pa_va_lookup(u64 pa, u32 type) > +static u64 efi_pa_va_lookup(u64 pa) > { > efi_memory_desc_t *md; > u64 pa_offset = pa & ~PAGE_MASK; > u64 page = pa & PAGE_MASK; > > for_each_efi_memory_desc(md) { > - if ((md->type == type) && > + if ((md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME) && > (md->phys_addr < pa && pa < md->phys_addr + > PAGE_SIZE * md->num_pages)) { > return pa_offset + md->virt_addr + page - > md->phys_addr; > } > @@ -150,18 +150,20 @@ 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, > EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE); > - 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", > - cur_handler, &th->guid, th->handler_addr, > - (void *)th->static_data_buffer_addr, > (void *)th->acpi_param_buffer_addr); > + th->handler_addr = (void > *)efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->handler_address); > + if (!th->handler_addr) > + pr_warn( "Idx: %llu, failed to find VA for > handler_addr(GUID: %pUL, PA: %p)", > + cur_handler, &th->guid, th->handler_addr); > + > + th->static_data_buffer_addr = > efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->static_data_buffer_address); > + if (!th->static_data_buffer_addr) > + pr_warn( "Idx: %llu, failed to find VA for > data_addr(PA: %p)", > + cur_handler, &th->guid, (void > *)th->static_data_buffer_addr); > + > + th->acpi_param_buffer_addr = > efi_pa_va_lookup(handler_info->acpi_param_buffer_address); > + if (!th->acpi_param_buffer_addr) > + pr_warn( "Idx: %llu, failed to find VA for > param_addr(PA: %p)", > + cur_handler, &th->guid, (void > *)th->acpi_param_buffer_addr); > > ``` > ... > >>> @@ -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? > As per Rui's comment, goto can be replaced with return. > So I modified them with return and PRM_HANDLER_GUID_NOT_FOUND. I don't think this change is necessary, but it should be a separate patch at the very least.
