On Fri, 2021-02-19 at 11:08 -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On 2/18/21 5:13 PM, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> >> Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >>> On 2/18/21 4:07 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Mimi,
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 2021-02-18 at 14:33 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >>>>> of_kexec_alloc_and_setup_fdt() defined in drivers/of/kexec.c builds
> >>>>> a new device tree object that includes architecture specific data
> >>>>> for kexec system call. This should be defined only if the architecture
> >>>>> being built defines kexec architecture structure "struct kimage_arch".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Define a new boolean config OF_KEXEC that is enabled if
> >>>>> CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE and CONFIG_OF_FLATTREE are enabled, and
> >>>>> the architecture is arm64 or powerpc64. Build drivers/of/kexec.c
> >>>>> if CONFIG_OF_KEXEC is enabled.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Fixes: 33488dc4d61f ("of: Add a common kexec FDT setup function")
> >>>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> drivers/of/Kconfig | 6 ++++++
> >>>>> drivers/of/Makefile | 7 +------
> >>>>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/Kconfig b/drivers/of/Kconfig
> >>>>> index 18450437d5d5..f2e8fa54862a 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/of/Kconfig
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/Kconfig
> >>>>> @@ -100,4 +100,10 @@ config OF_DMA_DEFAULT_COHERENT
> >>>>> # arches should select this if DMA is coherent by default for OF devices
> >>>>> bool
> >>>>> +config OF_KEXEC
> >>>>> + bool
> >>>>> + depends on KEXEC_FILE
> >>>>> + depends on OF_FLATTREE
> >>>>> + default y if ARM64 || PPC64
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> endif # OF
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/Makefile b/drivers/of/Makefile
> >>>>> index c13b982084a3..287579dd1695 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/of/Makefile
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/Makefile
> >>>>> @@ -13,11 +13,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OF_RESERVED_MEM) += of_reserved_mem.o
> >>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_OF_RESOLVE) += resolver.o
> >>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_OF_OVERLAY) += overlay.o
> >>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_OF_NUMA) += of_numa.o
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> -ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE
> >>>>> -ifdef CONFIG_OF_FLATTREE
> >>>>> -obj-y += kexec.o
> >>>>> -endif
> >>>>> -endif
> >>>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_OF_KEXEC) += kexec.o
> >>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_OF_UNITTEST) += unittest-data/
> >>>> Is it possible to reuse CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC here?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> For ppc64 CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC is selected when CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE is enabled.
> >>> So I don't see a problem in reusing CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC for ppc.
> >>>
> >>> But for arm64, CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC is enabled in the final patch in the patch
> >>> set (the one for carrying forward IMA log across kexec for arm64). arm64 calls
> >>> of_kexec_alloc_and_setup_fdt() prior to enabling CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC and hence
> >>> breaks the build for arm64.
> >> One problem is that I believe that this patch won't placate the robot,
> >> because IIUC it generates config files at random and this change still
> >> allows hppa and s390 to enable CONFIG_OF_KEXEC.
> >
> > I enabled CONFIG_OF_KEXEC for s390. With my patch applied, CONFIG_OF_KEXEC is
> > removed. So I think the robot enabling this config would not be a problem.
> >
> >> Perhaps a new CONFIG_HAVE_KIMAGE_ARCH option? Not having that option
> >> would still allow building kexec.o, but would be used inside kexec.c to
> >> avoid accessing kimage.arch members.
> >>
> >
> > I think this is a good idea - a new CONFIG_HAVE_KIMAGE_ARCH, which will be
> > selected by arm64 and ppc for now. I tried this, and it fixes the build issue.
> >
> > Although, the name for the new config can be misleading since PARISC, for
> > instance, also defines "struct kimage_arch". Perhaps,
> > CONFIG_HAVE_ELF_KIMAGE_ARCH since of_kexec_alloc_and_setup_fdt() is
> > accessing ELF specific fields in "struct kimage_arch"?
>
> Ah, right. I should have digged into the code before making my
> suggestion. CONFIG_HAVE_KIMAGE_ARCH isn't appropriate, indeed.
>
> >
> > Rob/Mimi - please let us know which approach you think is better.
>
> Ah! We can actually use the existing CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC, no? I don't
> know why I didn't think of it before.
Including kexec.o based on CONFIG_HAVE_IMA_KEXEC is a bisect issue on
ARM64, as Lakshmi pointed out. Defining a new, maybe temporary, flag
would solve the problem.
Mimi
