On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 03:44:38PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 09/07/13 15:13, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 02:38:53PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> >> From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> If there are UNUSABLE regions in the machine memory map, dom0 will
> >> attempt to map them 1:1 which is not permitted by Xen and the kernel
> >> will crash.
> >>
> >> There isn't anything interesting in the UNUSABLE region that the dom0
> >> kernel needs access to so we can avoid making the 1:1 mapping and
> >> leave the region as RAM.
> >>
> >> Since the obtaining the memory map for dom0 and domU are now more
> >> different, refactor each into separate functions.
> >>
> >> This fixes a dom0 boot failure if tboot is used (because tboot was
> >> marking a memory region as UNUSABLE).
> >
> > Please also include the serial log that shows the crash.
>
> It's a domain crash by Xen and it isn't useful as none of the stack is
> decoded.
Could you include the E820 at least to get a sense of where and how
this looks? As in - without tboot and then with tboot?
>
> >> +static int __init xen_get_memory_map_dom0(struct e820entry *map,
> >> + unsigned *nr_entries)
> >> +{
> >> + struct xen_memory_map memmap;
> >> + unsigned i;
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Dom0 requires access to machine addresses for BIOS data and
> >> + * MMIO (e.g. PCI) devices. The reset of the kernel expects
> >> + * to be able to access these through a 1:1 p2m mapping.
> >> + *
> >> + * We need to take the pseudo physical memory map and set up
> >> + * 1:1 mappings corresponding to the RESERVED regions and
> >> + * holes in the /machine/ memory map, adding/expanding the RAM
> >> + * region at the end of the map for the relocated RAM.
>
> This is the key paragraph. The apparent use of the machine memory map
> for dom0 is a confusing fiction.
OK, but I don't follow when dom0 would be using the E820_UNUSED regions.
Is it the xen_do_chunk that is failing on said PFNs? Or is it in this
code xen_set_identity_and_release_chunk:
"217 /*
218 * If the PFNs are currently mapped, the VA mapping also needs
219 * to be updated to be 1:1.
220 */
221 for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn <= max_pfn_mapped && pfn < end_pfn; pfn++)
222 (void)HYPERVISOR_update_va_mapping(
223 (unsigned long)__va(pfn << PAGE_SHIFT),
224 mfn_pte(pfn, PAGE_KERNEL_IO), 0);
225 "
which updates the initial PTE's with the 1-1 PFN and the E820_UNUSABLE is
somehow in between two E820_RAM regions?
>
> >> + *
> >> + * This is more easily done if we just start with the machine
> >> + * memory map.
> >> + *
> >> + * UNUSABLE regions are awkward, they are not interesting to
> >> + * dom0 and Xen won't allow them to be mapped so we want to
> >> + * leave these as RAM in the pseudo physical map.
> >
> > We just want them as such in the P2M but not do any PTE creation for it?
> > Why do we care about it? We are not creating any page tables for
> > E820_UNUSABLE regions.
>
> I don't follow what you're asking here.
What code maps said PFNs.
>
> In dom0, UNUSABLE regions in the machine memory map are RAM regions on
> the pseudo-physical memory map. So instead of playing games and making
> these regions special in the pseudo-physical map we just leave them as RAM.
.. And then exposing them to the kernel to be used as normal RAM?
>
> >> + *
> >> + * Again, this is easiest if we take the machine memory map
> >> + * and change the UNUSABLE regions to RAM.
> >
> > Won't then Linux try to map them then? In 3.9 (or was it 3.8?) and further
> > the page table creation starts ignoring any E820 entries that are not RAM.
> > See init_range_memory_mapping and its comment:
>
> Yes. They are just regular RAM in the pseudo-physical map.
With your change it is. But without your change it would not map it.
>
> > /*
> > * We need to iterate through the E820 memory map and create direct mappings
> > * for only E820_RAM and E820_KERN_RESERVED regions. We cannot simply
> > * create direct mappings for all pfns from [0 to max_low_pfn) and
> > * [4GB to max_pfn) because of possible memory holes in high addresses
> > * that cannot be marked as UC by fixed/variable range MTRRs.
> > * Depending on the alignment of E820 ranges, this may possibly result
> > * in using smaller size (i.e. 4K instead of 2M or 1G) page tables.
> > *
> >
> >
> > So in effect you are now altering them.
>
> No.
>
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> + memmap.nr_entries = *nr_entries;
> >> + set_xen_guest_handle(memmap.buffer, map);
> >> +
> >> + ret = HYPERVISOR_memory_op(XENMEM_machine_memory_map, &memmap);
> >> + if (ret < 0)
> >> + return ret;
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 0; i < memmap.nr_entries; i++) {
> >> + if (map[i].type == E820_UNUSABLE)
> >
> > What if the E820_UNUSABLE regions were manufactured by the BIOS? Or
> > somebody booted Xen with mem=3G (in which we clip the memory) on a 16GB
> > box.
>
> The resulting memory map should be clipped by the result of the call to
> xen_get_max_pages().
OK. What about the BIOS manufacturing it?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html