On 9 February 2018 at 16:03, James Morse <james.mo...@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Akashi, Ard,
> On 02/02/18 04:35, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 05:34:26PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 1 February 2018 at 09:04, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org>
>>>> * Initial ACPI tables are normally stored in system ram and marked as
>>>> "ACPI Reclaim memory" by the firmware.
>>>> * After the commit f56ab9a5b73c ("efi/arm: Don't mark ACPI reclaim
>>>> memory as MEMBLOCK_NOMAP"), those regions are differently handled
>>>> as they are "memblock-reserved", without NOMAP bit.
> I don't think I'd grasped the implications of this before... are we accessing
> the acpi tables via the linear map now?
Yes. As the commit log for that patch says, the fact that the firmware
chose to allocate them as 'ACPI reclaim memory' implies that the
memory has no special significance to the firmware, and can be covered
by the linear mapping. This aims to reduce page table fragmentation.
>>>> * So they are now excluded from device tree's "usable-memory-range"
>>>> which kexec-tools determines based on a current view of /proc/iomem.
>>> So this patch does fix the fallout of how this issue affects ACPI boot
>>> in particular, but is it correct in the first place for the kexec
>>> tools to disregard memory that has been memblock_reserved()?
> I don't think kexec should be allowed to accidentally overwrite these regions
> they contain data needed to boot the system.
> The reason to allow this would be booting a non-acpi OS and removing all the
> ACPI gubbins from the DTB, (but I don't care if kexec can't do this).
> Overwriting these regions used to be prevented because these regions were
> but now they are showing up as 'System RAM', so they could be accidentally
> overwritten. It looks like /proc/iomem doesn't see memblock_reserve()d regions
> as they are in both memblock.memory and memblock.reserved.
Aren't there other memblock_reserve'd regions that we need to preserve
across kexec? I'd be surprised if these ACPI tables are the only thing
that may get clobbered this way.
>> My previous patch is just for this. It would work not only for
>> the case here but also for any "reserved" memory regions.
>> The only noticeable drawback that I see in this approach is that
>> the meaning of "usable-memory-range" is now a bit obscure.
> usable-memory-range is only for kdump. The usable-memory-range is the reserved
> crash region of the previous kernel, it can't overlap with anything that is
> reserved by firmware.
> Have I understood the problem correctly?:
> 1. ACPI reserved regions may be accidentally overwritten by kexec,
> 2. Kdump-kernel can't access the ACPI reserved regions via its linear map.
>> Alternatively we may want to modify /proc/iomem, adding a specific
>> resource entry for "ACPI Reclaim regions,"
> This covers 1, nicely. kexec-tool's arm64:iomem_range_callback() looks like it
> ignores regions it doesn't know about.
>> and in turn kexec-tool so as to put them into "usable-memory-range",
>> but it is rather a stopgap
>> measure in my opinion. I don't like kexec relying heavily on userspace
>> tool as exporting the reserved regions in /proc/iomem is also useless
>> for most users.
> Describing all the iomem:reserved regions in dt:usable-memory-range? Yes, that
> sounds fragile.
> For 1:
> Changing /proc/iomem to report memblock_reserved() regions as reserved would
> 1. (I assume its harder to find the ACPI reserved regions again to describe
> separately). This stops kexec overwriting them.
> For 2:
> This patch solves the problem, but we access the acpi tables via the linear
> in the first kernel, but ioremap() them in the kdump kernel.
> The only way to avoid this would be for the kernel's efi code to check that
> ACPI regions are mapped by the linear map, and add them if they aren't...
> is much scarier. So I prefer this patch for 2..