Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
Le 20/02/2019 à 14:23, Michael Ellerman a écrit : Christophe Leroy writes: Le 15/01/2019 à 11:22, Michael Ellerman a écrit : Christophe Leroy writes: Le 15/01/2019 à 01:33, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : ... - patches 7 to 11 fail to build with this error (really a warning, but arch/powerpc doesn't allow warnings by default): CC arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.o ../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:133:13: error: ‘clearibat’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] static void clearibat(int index) ^ ../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:115:13: error: ‘setibat’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] static void setibat(int index, unsigned long virt, phys_addr_t phys, ^~~ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors Argh ! I have to squash the patch bringing the new functions with the one using them (patch 12). The result is a big messy patch which is more difficult to review but that's life. You don't *have* to squash them. We like to preserve bisectability, but it's not a 100% hard requirement. Someone trying to bisect through those patches can always turn off -Werror with PPC_DISABLE_WERROR. But they probably can just skip them because they just add new code that's not called yet. Ok thanks for the note. So I won't object if you send them as-is. Good to know. Anyway I think I will at least re-order so that the patch using the new functions immediatly follows the one adding the functions. Based on that I'm expecting a v3 of this series, right? Right. Coming soon. Christophe
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
Christophe Leroy writes: > Le 15/01/2019 à 11:22, Michael Ellerman a écrit : >> Christophe Leroy writes: >>> Le 15/01/2019 à 01:33, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : >> ... - patches 7 to 11 fail to build with this error (really a warning, but arch/powerpc doesn't allow warnings by default): CC arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.o ../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:133:13: error: ‘clearibat’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] static void clearibat(int index) ^ ../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:115:13: error: ‘setibat’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] static void setibat(int index, unsigned long virt, phys_addr_t phys, ^~~ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors >>> >>> Argh ! I have to squash the patch bringing the new functions with the >>> one using them (patch 12). The result is a big messy patch which is more >>> difficult to review but that's life. >> >> You don't *have* to squash them. >> >> We like to preserve bisectability, but it's not a 100% hard requirement. >> >> Someone trying to bisect through those patches can always turn off >> -Werror with PPC_DISABLE_WERROR. But they probably can just skip them >> because they just add new code that's not called yet. > > Ok thanks for the note. > >> >> So I won't object if you send them as-is. > > Good to know. Anyway I think I will at least re-order so that the patch > using the new functions immediatly follows the one adding the functions. Based on that I'm expecting a v3 of this series, right? cheers
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
Le 17/01/2019 à 00:48, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:34:53PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: Le 16/01/2019 à 14:16, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:55:29AM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: Le 16/01/2019 à 01:35, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : Thinning the kernel down a bit actually makes it boot again. Ooops...! Maybe enabling CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX has made it just large enough to fail the hash table allocation, but there may have been other factors involved (I'm not sure exactly). Sorry for the confusion! Ok, that must be the reason. Thanks for testing. What about the following modification which maps a second 256Mb BAT, does it helps ? diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S index c2f564690778..ea574596de37 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S @@ -1160,6 +1160,14 @@ initial_bats: mtspr SPRN_DBAT0U,r11 /* bit in upper BAT register */ mtspr SPRN_IBAT0L,r8 mtspr SPRN_IBAT0U,r11 +#ifdef CONFIG_WII + addis r11,r11,0x1000@h + addis r8,r8,0x1000@h + mtspr SPRN_DBAT2L,r8 + mtspr SPRN_DBAT2U,r11 + mtspr SPRN_IBAT2L,r8 + mtspr SPRN_IBAT2U,r11 +#endif isync blr diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c index 3f4193201ee7..a334fd5210a8 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c @@ -259,6 +259,8 @@ void setup_initial_memory_limit(phys_addr_t first_memblock_base, /* 601 can only access 16MB at the moment */ if (PVR_VER(mfspr(SPRN_PVR)) == 1) memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, 0x0100)); + else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WII)) + memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, 0x2000)); else /* Anything else has 256M mapped */ memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, 0x1000)); } I haven't tested it, but this patch won't be enough, because we're only looking at the first memblock, and the additional memory in the Wii (MEM2) is the second memblock. Yes right. Would the following work instead ? memblock_set_current_limit(0x2000); With the config at https://gist.githubusercontent.com/neuschaefer/12ccc87ff8aeff543fad558e8742cd2b/raw/d49d321709cac364779e6893bbd91ff5a80bcb03/config it still doesn't boot, but with a different error: top of MEM2 @ 13F0 zImage starting: loaded at 0x0100 (sp: 0x0178afa0) Allocating 0x166b2c8 bytes for kernel... Decompressing (0x <- 0x01011000:0x01788799)... Done! Decompressed 0xf421f4 bytes Linux/PowerPC load: root=/dev/mmcblk0p2 rootwait console=usbgecko1 Finalizing device tree... flat tree at 0x178b7a0 [0.00] printk: bootconsole [udbg0] enabled [0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down(1000:2000, 10:10, , 0) [0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: in loop, 1000:13f0 [0.00] Total memory = 319MB; using 1024kB for hash table (at d3e0) [0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down(1000:2000, 1000:1000, , 0) [0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: in loop, 1000:13e0 [0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down(1000:2000, 1000:1000, , 0) [0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: in loop, 1000:13dff000 [0.00] BUG: Unable to handle kernel data access at 0xc106a434 [0.00] Faulting instruction address: 0xc0071bf4 [0.00] Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#1] [0.00] BE PREEMPT [0.00] Modules linked in: [0.00] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.0.0-rc1-wii-00038-gc34b70d591b6-dirty #1337 [0.00] NIP: c0071bf4 LR: c00727d8 CTR: [0.00] REGS: c0f1fd30 TRAP: 0300 Not tainted (5.0.0-rc1-wii-00038-gc34b70d591b6-dirty) [0.00] MSR: 1032 CR: 44002842 XER: [0.00] DAR: c106a434 DSISR: 4000 [0.00] GPR00: c0074a98 c0f1fde0 c0ead4a0 c0ead4a0 c0ead9c8 0008 [0.00] GPR08: 0003 c106a418 0258 0001 24000444 fb43ef5b c0f3 7561f327 [0.00] GPR16: c0f4 691cfd11 38afe359 f161e513 c0ead9c8 0001 [0.00] GPR24: c0f46288 c0ead4a0 c0ead9c8 0008 c0ead4a0 0100 [0.00] NIP [c0071bf4] mark_lock+0x64/0x858 [0.00] LR [c00727d8] __lock_acquire+0x334/0x1a40 [0.00] Call Trace: [0.00] [c0f1fe20] [0006] 0x6 [0.00] [c0f1fed0] [c0074a98] lock_acquire+0x110/0x20c [0.00] [c0f1ff10] [c085e8cc] _raw_spin_lock+0x44/0x60 [0.00] [c0f1ff30] [c007f220] vprintk_emit+0xa0/0x328 [0.00] [c0f1ff70] [c007fc48] printk+0x5c/0x84 [0.00] [c0f1ffb0] [c0c00854] start_kernel+0x64/0x460 [0.00] [c0f1fff0] [3438] 0x3438 [0.00]
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:34:53PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Le 16/01/2019 à 14:16, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:55:29AM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > Le 16/01/2019 à 01:35, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : > > > > Thinning the kernel down a bit actually makes it boot again. Ooops...! > > > > Maybe enabling CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX has made it just large enough to > > > > fail the hash table allocation, but there may have been other factors > > > > involved (I'm not sure exactly). Sorry for the confusion! > > > > > > Ok, that must be the reason. Thanks for testing. > > > > > > What about the following modification which maps a second 256Mb BAT, does > > > it > > > helps ? > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S > > > index c2f564690778..ea574596de37 100644 > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S > > > @@ -1160,6 +1160,14 @@ initial_bats: > > > mtspr SPRN_DBAT0U,r11 /* bit in upper BAT register */ > > > mtspr SPRN_IBAT0L,r8 > > > mtspr SPRN_IBAT0U,r11 > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_WII > > > + addis r11,r11,0x1000@h > > > + addis r8,r8,0x1000@h > > > + mtspr SPRN_DBAT2L,r8 > > > + mtspr SPRN_DBAT2U,r11 > > > + mtspr SPRN_IBAT2L,r8 > > > + mtspr SPRN_IBAT2U,r11 > > > +#endif > > > isync > > > blr > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c > > > index 3f4193201ee7..a334fd5210a8 100644 > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c > > > @@ -259,6 +259,8 @@ void setup_initial_memory_limit(phys_addr_t > > > first_memblock_base, > > > /* 601 can only access 16MB at the moment */ > > > if (PVR_VER(mfspr(SPRN_PVR)) == 1) > > > memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, > > > first_memblock_size, 0x0100)); > > > + else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WII)) > > > + memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, > > > 0x2000)); > > > else /* Anything else has 256M mapped */ > > > memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, > > > first_memblock_size, 0x1000)); > > > } > > > > I haven't tested it, but this patch won't be enough, because we're only > > looking at the first memblock, and the additional memory in the Wii > > (MEM2) is the second memblock. > > > > Yes right. > > > Would the following work instead ? > > memblock_set_current_limit(0x2000); With the config at https://gist.githubusercontent.com/neuschaefer/12ccc87ff8aeff543fad558e8742cd2b/raw/d49d321709cac364779e6893bbd91ff5a80bcb03/config it still doesn't boot, but with a different error: top of MEM2 @ 13F0 zImage starting: loaded at 0x0100 (sp: 0x0178afa0) Allocating 0x166b2c8 bytes for kernel... Decompressing (0x <- 0x01011000:0x01788799)... Done! Decompressed 0xf421f4 bytes Linux/PowerPC load: root=/dev/mmcblk0p2 rootwait console=usbgecko1 Finalizing device tree... flat tree at 0x178b7a0 [0.00] printk: bootconsole [udbg0] enabled [0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down(1000:2000, 10:10, , 0) [0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: in loop, 1000:13f0 [0.00] Total memory = 319MB; using 1024kB for hash table (at d3e0) [0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down(1000:2000, 1000:1000, , 0) [0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: in loop, 1000:13e0 [0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down(1000:2000, 1000:1000, , 0) [0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: in loop, 1000:13dff000 [0.00] BUG: Unable to handle kernel data access at 0xc106a434 [0.00] Faulting instruction address: 0xc0071bf4 [0.00] Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#1] [0.00] BE PREEMPT [0.00] Modules linked in: [0.00] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.0.0-rc1-wii-00038-gc34b70d591b6-dirty #1337 [0.00] NIP: c0071bf4 LR: c00727d8 CTR: [0.00] REGS: c0f1fd30 TRAP: 0300 Not tainted (5.0.0-rc1-wii-00038-gc34b70d591b6-dirty) [0.00] MSR: 1032 CR: 44002842 XER: [0.00] DAR: c106a434 DSISR: 4000 [0.00] GPR00: c0074a98 c0f1fde0 c0ead4a0 c0ead4a0 c0ead9c8 0008 [0.00] GPR08: 0003 c106a418 0258 0001 24000444 fb43ef5b c0f3 7561f327 [0.00] GPR16: c0f4 691cfd11 38afe359 f161e513 c0ead9c8 0001 [0.00] GPR24: c0f46288 c0ead4a0 c0ead9c8 0008 c0ead4a0 0100 [0.00] NIP [c0071bf4] mark_lock+0x64/0x858 [0.00] LR [c00727d8] __lock_acquire+0x334/0x1a40 [0.00] Call Trace: [0.00] [c0f1fe20] [0006] 0x6 [0.00] [c0f1fed0] [c0074a98] lock_acquire+0x110/0x20c [0.00] [c0f1ff10] [c085e8cc]
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
Le 16/01/2019 à 14:16, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:55:29AM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: Le 16/01/2019 à 01:35, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : Thinning the kernel down a bit actually makes it boot again. Ooops...! Maybe enabling CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX has made it just large enough to fail the hash table allocation, but there may have been other factors involved (I'm not sure exactly). Sorry for the confusion! Ok, that must be the reason. Thanks for testing. What about the following modification which maps a second 256Mb BAT, does it helps ? diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S index c2f564690778..ea574596de37 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S @@ -1160,6 +1160,14 @@ initial_bats: mtspr SPRN_DBAT0U,r11 /* bit in upper BAT register */ mtspr SPRN_IBAT0L,r8 mtspr SPRN_IBAT0U,r11 +#ifdef CONFIG_WII + addis r11,r11,0x1000@h + addis r8,r8,0x1000@h + mtspr SPRN_DBAT2L,r8 + mtspr SPRN_DBAT2U,r11 + mtspr SPRN_IBAT2L,r8 + mtspr SPRN_IBAT2U,r11 +#endif isync blr diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c index 3f4193201ee7..a334fd5210a8 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c @@ -259,6 +259,8 @@ void setup_initial_memory_limit(phys_addr_t first_memblock_base, /* 601 can only access 16MB at the moment */ if (PVR_VER(mfspr(SPRN_PVR)) == 1) memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, 0x0100)); + else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WII)) + memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, 0x2000)); else /* Anything else has 256M mapped */ memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, 0x1000)); } I haven't tested it, but this patch won't be enough, because we're only looking at the first memblock, and the additional memory in the Wii (MEM2) is the second memblock. Yes right. Would the following work instead ? memblock_set_current_limit(0x2000); Christophe
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:55:29AM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Le 16/01/2019 à 01:35, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : > > Thinning the kernel down a bit actually makes it boot again. Ooops...! > > Maybe enabling CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX has made it just large enough to > > fail the hash table allocation, but there may have been other factors > > involved (I'm not sure exactly). Sorry for the confusion! > > Ok, that must be the reason. Thanks for testing. > > What about the following modification which maps a second 256Mb BAT, does it > helps ? > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S > index c2f564690778..ea574596de37 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S > @@ -1160,6 +1160,14 @@ initial_bats: > mtspr SPRN_DBAT0U,r11 /* bit in upper BAT register */ > mtspr SPRN_IBAT0L,r8 > mtspr SPRN_IBAT0U,r11 > +#ifdef CONFIG_WII > + addis r11,r11,0x1000@h > + addis r8,r8,0x1000@h > + mtspr SPRN_DBAT2L,r8 > + mtspr SPRN_DBAT2U,r11 > + mtspr SPRN_IBAT2L,r8 > + mtspr SPRN_IBAT2U,r11 > +#endif > isync > blr > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c > index 3f4193201ee7..a334fd5210a8 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c > @@ -259,6 +259,8 @@ void setup_initial_memory_limit(phys_addr_t > first_memblock_base, > /* 601 can only access 16MB at the moment */ > if (PVR_VER(mfspr(SPRN_PVR)) == 1) > memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, > 0x0100)); > + else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WII)) > + memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, > 0x2000)); > else /* Anything else has 256M mapped */ > memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, > 0x1000)); > } I haven't tested it, but this patch won't be enough, because we're only looking at the first memblock, and the additional memory in the Wii (MEM2) is the second memblock. Jonathan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
Le 16/01/2019 à 01:35, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 07:51:01AM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 15/01/2019 à 01:33, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit :
[...]
I've checked it patch-by-patch now (with STRICT_KERNEL_RWX):
- patches 1 and 2 build and boot fine
- patches 3 to 6 build, but fail to boot with this error:
The bug is in patch 2, mmu_mapin_ram() should return base instead of
returning 0 when __map_without_bats is set.
Indeed, with this change, I can boot up to patch 11.
- patches 12 to 15 build but fail to boot with this error:
Thats the one we need to really understand.
Do you have modules ? If so, can you try without ?
I don't use any modules in my test setup, but I have module support
enabled. Disabling CONFIG_MODULES makes no difference, as far as I can
see (I get the same backtrace with memblock_alloc_base+0x34/0x44).
[0.00] [c0f1ff30] [c00280f0] panic+0x144/0x324 (unreliable)
[0.00] [c0f1ff90] [c0c18a34] memblock_alloc_base+0x34/0x44
[0.00] [c0f1ffa0] [c0c071e0] MMU_init_hw+0xcc/0x300
[0.00] [c0f1ffd0] [c0c06554] MMU_init+0x12c/0x198
[0.00] [c0f1fff0] [c0003418] start_here+0x40/0x78
With a few printks[1], I traced this error, and got the following
result:
[0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down(1000:180, 10:10,
, 0)
[0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: in loop, 1000:13f0
[0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: in loop, 179962d:180
[0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: in loop, 1676000:17987a0
[0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: nothing found :(
The limit of 0x180 comes from setup_initial_memory_limit, which only
considers the first memblock, but the second memblock starts at 256MiB,
so it wouldn't be usable anyway, according to the comment in
setup_initial_memory_limit.
Yes, initial_bats() in head_32.S sets one 256Mb BAT for initial booting:
/*
* On 601, we use 3 BATs to map up to 24M of RAM at _PAGE_OFFSET
* (we keep one for debugging) and on others, we use one 256M BAT.
*/
initial_bats:
lis r11,PAGE_OFFSET@h
mfspr r9,SPRN_PVR
rlwinm r9,r9,16,16,31 /* r9 = 1 for 601, 4 for 604 */
cmpwi 0,r9,1
bne 4f
...
4: tophys(r8,r11)
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
ori r8,r8,0x12 /* R/W access, M=1 */
#else
ori r8,r8,2 /* R/W access */
#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
ori r11,r11,BL_256M<<2|0x2/* set up BAT registers for 604 */
mtspr SPRN_DBAT0L,r8 /* N.B. 6xx (not 601) have valid */
mtspr SPRN_DBAT0U,r11 /* bit in upper BAT register */
mtspr SPRN_IBAT0L,r8
mtspr SPRN_IBAT0U,r11
isync
blr
Thinning the kernel down a bit actually makes it boot again. Ooops...!
Maybe enabling CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX has made it just large enough to
fail the hash table allocation, but there may have been other factors
involved (I'm not sure exactly). Sorry for the confusion!
Ok, that must be the reason. Thanks for testing.
What about the following modification which maps a second 256Mb BAT,
does it helps ?
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S
index c2f564690778..ea574596de37 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S
@@ -1160,6 +1160,14 @@ initial_bats:
mtspr SPRN_DBAT0U,r11 /* bit in upper BAT register */
mtspr SPRN_IBAT0L,r8
mtspr SPRN_IBAT0U,r11
+#ifdef CONFIG_WII
+ addis r11,r11,0x1000@h
+ addis r8,r8,0x1000@h
+ mtspr SPRN_DBAT2L,r8
+ mtspr SPRN_DBAT2U,r11
+ mtspr SPRN_IBAT2L,r8
+ mtspr SPRN_IBAT2U,r11
+#endif
isync
blr
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c
index 3f4193201ee7..a334fd5210a8 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c
@@ -259,6 +259,8 @@ void setup_initial_memory_limit(phys_addr_t
first_memblock_base,
/* 601 can only access 16MB at the moment */
if (PVR_VER(mfspr(SPRN_PVR)) == 1)
memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size,
0x0100));
+ else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WII))
+ memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size,
0x2000));
else /* Anything else has 256M mapped */
memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size,
0x1000));
}
Christophe
Jonathan
[1]:
diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
index 022d4cbb3618..66d588e08487 100644
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -215,8 +215,11 @@ __memblock_find_range_top_down(phys_addr_t start,
phys_addr_t end,
phys_addr_t this_start, this_end, cand;
u64 i;
+ printk("%s(%x:%x, %x:%x, %x, %x)\n", __func__, start, end, size, align, nid, flags);
+
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 07:51:01AM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 15/01/2019 à 01:33, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit :
[...]
> > I've checked it patch-by-patch now (with STRICT_KERNEL_RWX):
> >
> > - patches 1 and 2 build and boot fine
> > - patches 3 to 6 build, but fail to boot with this error:
>
> The bug is in patch 2, mmu_mapin_ram() should return base instead of
> returning 0 when __map_without_bats is set.
Indeed, with this change, I can boot up to patch 11.
> > - patches 12 to 15 build but fail to boot with this error:
>
> Thats the one we need to really understand.
>
> Do you have modules ? If so, can you try without ?
I don't use any modules in my test setup, but I have module support
enabled. Disabling CONFIG_MODULES makes no difference, as far as I can
see (I get the same backtrace with memblock_alloc_base+0x34/0x44).
> > [0.00] [c0f1ff30] [c00280f0] panic+0x144/0x324 (unreliable)
> > [0.00] [c0f1ff90] [c0c18a34] memblock_alloc_base+0x34/0x44
> > [0.00] [c0f1ffa0] [c0c071e0] MMU_init_hw+0xcc/0x300
> > [0.00] [c0f1ffd0] [c0c06554] MMU_init+0x12c/0x198
> > [0.00] [c0f1fff0] [c0003418] start_here+0x40/0x78
With a few printks[1], I traced this error, and got the following
result:
[0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down(1000:180, 10:10,
, 0)
[0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: in loop, 1000:13f0
[0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: in loop, 179962d:180
[0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: in loop, 1676000:17987a0
[0.00] __memblock_find_range_top_down: nothing found :(
The limit of 0x180 comes from setup_initial_memory_limit, which only
considers the first memblock, but the second memblock starts at 256MiB,
so it wouldn't be usable anyway, according to the comment in
setup_initial_memory_limit.
Thinning the kernel down a bit actually makes it boot again. Ooops...!
Maybe enabling CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX has made it just large enough to
fail the hash table allocation, but there may have been other factors
involved (I'm not sure exactly). Sorry for the confusion!
Jonathan
[1]:
diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
index 022d4cbb3618..66d588e08487 100644
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -215,8 +215,11 @@ __memblock_find_range_top_down(phys_addr_t start,
phys_addr_t end,
phys_addr_t this_start, this_end, cand;
u64 i;
+ printk("%s(%x:%x, %x:%x, %x, %x)\n", __func__, start, end, size, align,
nid, flags);
+
for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(i, nid, flags, _start, _end,
NULL) {
+ printk("%s: in loop, %x:%x\n", __func__, this_start, this_end);
this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
@@ -228,6 +231,7 @@ __memblock_find_range_top_down(phys_addr_t start,
phys_addr_t end,
return cand;
}
+ printk("%s: nothing found :(\n", __func__);
return 0;
}
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
Le 15/01/2019 à 11:22, Michael Ellerman a écrit : Christophe Leroy writes: Le 15/01/2019 à 01:33, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : ... - patches 7 to 11 fail to build with this error (really a warning, but arch/powerpc doesn't allow warnings by default): CC arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.o ../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:133:13: error: ‘clearibat’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] static void clearibat(int index) ^ ../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:115:13: error: ‘setibat’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] static void setibat(int index, unsigned long virt, phys_addr_t phys, ^~~ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors Argh ! I have to squash the patch bringing the new functions with the one using them (patch 12). The result is a big messy patch which is more difficult to review but that's life. You don't *have* to squash them. We like to preserve bisectability, but it's not a 100% hard requirement. Someone trying to bisect through those patches can always turn off -Werror with PPC_DISABLE_WERROR. But they probably can just skip them because they just add new code that's not called yet. Ok thanks for the note. So I won't object if you send them as-is. Good to know. Anyway I think I will at least re-order so that the patch using the new functions immediatly follows the one adding the functions. Christophe cheers
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
Christophe Leroy writes: > Le 15/01/2019 à 01:33, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : ... >> >> - patches 7 to 11 fail to build with this error (really a warning, but >>arch/powerpc doesn't allow warnings by default): >> >>CC arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.o >> ../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:133:13: error: ‘clearibat’ defined but >> not used [-Werror=unused-function] >> static void clearibat(int index) >> ^ >> ../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:115:13: error: ‘setibat’ defined but >> not used [-Werror=unused-function] >> static void setibat(int index, unsigned long virt, phys_addr_t phys, >> ^~~ >> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > Argh ! I have to squash the patch bringing the new functions with the > one using them (patch 12). The result is a big messy patch which is more > difficult to review but that's life. You don't *have* to squash them. We like to preserve bisectability, but it's not a 100% hard requirement. Someone trying to bisect through those patches can always turn off -Werror with PPC_DISABLE_WERROR. But they probably can just skip them because they just add new code that's not called yet. So I won't object if you send them as-is. cheers
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
Le 15/01/2019 à 01:33, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 07:23:07PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: Le 13/01/2019 à 22:02, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: Le 13/01/2019 à 19:16, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : I just tested the whole series on my Wii (I didn't test any intermediate steps). Without CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX, it seems to work fine, but with it, I get the following error while booting: [...] I can't see anything special in your setup, and this failure looks rather unexpected because I can't see anything done that early when CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX is selected. Does CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX works properly without my serie ? I hadn't tried this before, but yes, without this series (on v5.0-rc2), a kernel with CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX boots. I've checked it patch-by-patch now (with STRICT_KERNEL_RWX): - patches 1 and 2 build and boot fine - patches 3 to 6 build, but fail to boot with this error: The bug is in patch 2, mmu_mapin_ram() should return base instead of returning 0 when __map_without_bats is set. top of MEM2 @ 13F0 zImage starting: loaded at 0x00e0 (sp: 0x01588fa0) Allocating 0x14e92c8 bytes for kernel... Decompressing (0x <- 0x00e11000:0x01586ba7)... Done! Decompressed 0xdc01f4 bytes Linux/PowerPC load: root=/dev/mmcblk0p2 rootwait console=usbgecko1 Finalizing device tree... flat tree at 0x15897a0 [0.00] printk: bootconsole [udbg0] enabled [0.00] Total memory = 319MB; using 1024kB for hash table (at (ptrval)) [0.00] RAM mapped without BATs [0.00] RAM mapped without BATs [0.00] [ cut here ] [0.00] kernel BUG at arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_32.c:223! [0.00] Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 5 [#1] [0.00] BE PREEMPT [0.00] Modules linked in: [0.00] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.0.0-rc1-wii-00024-g596f9fe23c13 #1337 [0.00] NIP: c0017c4c LR: c0a836a0 CTR: c001edc4 [0.00] REGS: c0d9deb0 TRAP: 0700 Not tainted (5.0.0-rc1-wii-00024-g596f9fe23c13) [0.00] MSR: 00020030 CR: 42000888 XER: 2000 [0.00] [0.00] GPR00: c0a836a0 c0d9df60 c0d2a4a0 c0d29c00 c16ff000 c0d9de28 c0dc [0.00] GPR08: c0d9c000 0001 0001 28000824 [0.00] GPR16: 0020 c086 c0da c000 c0a7d000 [0.00] GPR24: c0acd55c c0d487c8 13f0 c0d29000 0c00 0311 c000 c0d487c8 [0.00] NIP [c0017c4c] map_kernel_page+0x78/0xf0 [0.00] LR [c0a836a0] mapin_ram+0xe0/0x14c [0.00] Call Trace: [0.00] [c0d9df60] [c0a83f54] mmu_mapin_ram+0x54/0x1a4 (unreliable) [0.00] [c0d9df90] [c0a836a0] mapin_ram+0xe0/0x14c [0.00] [c0d9dfd0] [c0a83578] MMU_init+0x158/0x1a0 [0.00] [c0d9dff0] [c0003418] start_here+0x40/0x78 [0.00] Instruction dump: [0.00] 55290026 57c5b53a 7ca54a14 3d204000 7f854800 3ca5c000 419e0088 8125 [0.00] 552afffe 552907fe 7d4a4b79 4082004c <0f0a> 54840026 7c84eb78 9081000c [0.00] random: get_random_bytes called from print_oops_end_marker+0x34/0x6c with crng_init=0 [0.00] ---[ end trace ]--- [0.00] [0.00] Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill the idle task! [0.00] Rebooting in 180 seconds.. - patches 7 to 11 fail to build with this error (really a warning, but arch/powerpc doesn't allow warnings by default): CC arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.o ../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:133:13: error: ‘clearibat’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] static void clearibat(int index) ^ ../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:115:13: error: ‘setibat’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] static void setibat(int index, unsigned long virt, phys_addr_t phys, ^~~ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors Argh ! I have to squash the patch bringing the new functions with the one using them (patch 12). The result is a big messy patch which is more difficult to review but that's life. - patches 12 to 15 build but fail to boot with this error: Thats the one we need to really understand. Do you have modules ? If so, can you try without ? top of MEM2 @ 13F0 zImage starting: loaded at 0x0100 (sp: 0x0178afa0) Allocating 0x166b2c8 bytes for kernel... Decompressing (0x <- 0x01011000:0x017880ce)...
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 07:23:07PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > Le 13/01/2019 à 22:02, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > Le 13/01/2019 à 19:16, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : > > > > I just tested the whole series on my Wii (I didn't test any intermediate > > > > steps). Without CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX, it seems to work fine, but > > > > with it, I get the following error while booting: [...] > I can't see anything special in your setup, and this failure looks rather > unexpected because I can't see anything done that early when > CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX is selected. > > Does CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX works properly without my serie ? I hadn't tried this before, but yes, without this series (on v5.0-rc2), a kernel with CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX boots. I've checked it patch-by-patch now (with STRICT_KERNEL_RWX): - patches 1 and 2 build and boot fine - patches 3 to 6 build, but fail to boot with this error: top of MEM2 @ 13F0 zImage starting: loaded at 0x00e0 (sp: 0x01588fa0) Allocating 0x14e92c8 bytes for kernel... Decompressing (0x <- 0x00e11000:0x01586ba7)... Done! Decompressed 0xdc01f4 bytes Linux/PowerPC load: root=/dev/mmcblk0p2 rootwait console=usbgecko1 Finalizing device tree... flat tree at 0x15897a0 [0.00] printk: bootconsole [udbg0] enabled [0.00] Total memory = 319MB; using 1024kB for hash table (at (ptrval)) [0.00] RAM mapped without BATs [0.00] RAM mapped without BATs [0.00] [ cut here ] [0.00] kernel BUG at arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_32.c:223! [0.00] Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 5 [#1] [0.00] BE PREEMPT [0.00] Modules linked in: [0.00] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.0.0-rc1-wii-00024-g596f9fe23c13 #1337 [0.00] NIP: c0017c4c LR: c0a836a0 CTR: c001edc4 [0.00] REGS: c0d9deb0 TRAP: 0700 Not tainted (5.0.0-rc1-wii-00024-g596f9fe23c13) [0.00] MSR: 00020030 CR: 42000888 XER: 2000 [0.00] [0.00] GPR00: c0a836a0 c0d9df60 c0d2a4a0 c0d29c00 c16ff000 c0d9de28 c0dc [0.00] GPR08: c0d9c000 0001 0001 28000824 [0.00] GPR16: 0020 c086 c0da c000 c0a7d000 [0.00] GPR24: c0acd55c c0d487c8 13f0 c0d29000 0c00 0311 c000 c0d487c8 [0.00] NIP [c0017c4c] map_kernel_page+0x78/0xf0 [0.00] LR [c0a836a0] mapin_ram+0xe0/0x14c [0.00] Call Trace: [0.00] [c0d9df60] [c0a83f54] mmu_mapin_ram+0x54/0x1a4 (unreliable) [0.00] [c0d9df90] [c0a836a0] mapin_ram+0xe0/0x14c [0.00] [c0d9dfd0] [c0a83578] MMU_init+0x158/0x1a0 [0.00] [c0d9dff0] [c0003418] start_here+0x40/0x78 [0.00] Instruction dump: [0.00] 55290026 57c5b53a 7ca54a14 3d204000 7f854800 3ca5c000 419e0088 8125 [0.00] 552afffe 552907fe 7d4a4b79 4082004c <0f0a> 54840026 7c84eb78 9081000c [0.00] random: get_random_bytes called from print_oops_end_marker+0x34/0x6c with crng_init=0 [0.00] ---[ end trace ]--- [0.00] [0.00] Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill the idle task! [0.00] Rebooting in 180 seconds.. - patches 7 to 11 fail to build with this error (really a warning, but arch/powerpc doesn't allow warnings by default): CC arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.o ../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:133:13: error: ‘clearibat’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] static void clearibat(int index) ^ ../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:115:13: error: ‘setibat’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] static void setibat(int index, unsigned long virt, phys_addr_t phys, ^~~ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors - patches 12 to 15 build but fail to boot with this error: top of MEM2 @ 13F0 zImage starting: loaded at 0x0100 (sp: 0x0178afa0) Allocating 0x166b2c8 bytes for kernel... Decompressing (0x <- 0x01011000:0x017880ce)... Done! Decompressed 0xf421f4 bytes Linux/PowerPC load: root=/dev/mmcblk0p2 rootwait console=usbgecko1 Finalizing device tree... flat tree at 0x178b7a0 [0.00] printk: bootconsole [udbg0] enabled [0.00] Kernel panic - not syncing: ERROR: Failed to allocate 0x0010 bytes below 0x. [0.00] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
Le 13/01/2019 à 22:02, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: Le 13/01/2019 à 19:16, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : I just tested the whole series on my Wii (I didn't test any intermediate steps). Without CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX, it seems to work fine, but with it, I get the following error while booting: Argh ! Can you please send the System.map file generated at compile time ? Here: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/neuschaefer/12ccc87ff8aeff543fad558e8742cd2b/raw/d49d321709cac364779e6893bbd91ff5a80bcb03/System.map And here's the config, reduced with 'make savedefconfig': https://gist.githubusercontent.com/neuschaefer/12ccc87ff8aeff543fad558e8742cd2b/raw/d49d321709cac364779e6893bbd91ff5a80bcb03/config The exact code I used is here: https://github.com/neuschaefer/linux/tree/ppcbat-test Thanks I can't see anything special in your setup, and this failure looks rather unexpected because I can't see anything done that early when CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX is selected. Does CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX works properly without my serie ? Christophe Thanks, Jonathan
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Le 13/01/2019 à 19:16, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : > > I just tested the whole series on my Wii (I didn't test any intermediate > > steps). Without CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX, it seems to work fine, but > > with it, I get the following error while booting: > > Argh ! > > Can you please send the System.map file generated at compile time ? Here: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/neuschaefer/12ccc87ff8aeff543fad558e8742cd2b/raw/d49d321709cac364779e6893bbd91ff5a80bcb03/System.map And here's the config, reduced with 'make savedefconfig': https://gist.githubusercontent.com/neuschaefer/12ccc87ff8aeff543fad558e8742cd2b/raw/d49d321709cac364779e6893bbd91ff5a80bcb03/config The exact code I used is here: https://github.com/neuschaefer/linux/tree/ppcbat-test Thanks, Jonathan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
Le 13/01/2019 à 19:16, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit : On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:11:38PM +, Christophe Leroy wrote: The purpose of this serie is to: - use BATs with STRICT_KERNEL_RWX on book3s (See patch 12 for details.) - use LTLBs with STRICT_KERNEL_RWX on 8xx (See patch 14 for a few details.) Hi, I just tested the whole series on my Wii (I didn't test any intermediate steps). Without CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX, it seems to work fine, but with it, I get the following error while booting: Argh ! Can you please send the System.map file generated at compile time ? Thanks Christophe top of MEM2 @ 13F0 zImage starting: loaded at 0x0100 (sp: 0x0178afa0) Allocating 0x166b2c8 bytes for kernel... Decompressing (0x <- 0x01011000:0x01788398)... Done! Decompressed 0xf421f4 bytes Linux/PowerPC load: root=/dev/mmcblk0p2 rootwait console=usbgecko1 Finalizing device tree... flat tree at 0x178b7a0 [0.00] printk: bootconsole [udbg0] enabled [0.00] Kernel panic - not syncing: ERROR: Failed to allocate 0x0010 bytes below 0x. [0.00] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.0.0-rc1-wii-00038-g335347fa417f #1337 [0.00] Call Trace: [0.00] [c0f1ff30] [c00280f0] panic+0x144/0x324 (unreliable) [0.00] [c0f1ff90] [c0c18a34] memblock_alloc_base+0x34/0x44 [0.00] [c0f1ffa0] [c0c071e0] MMU_init_hw+0xcc/0x300 [0.00] [c0f1ffd0] [c0c06554] MMU_init+0x12c/0x198 [0.00] [c0f1fff0] [c0003418] start_here+0x40/0x78 [0.00] Rebooting in 180 seconds.. Jonathan
Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:11:38PM +, Christophe Leroy wrote: > The purpose of this serie is to: > - use BATs with STRICT_KERNEL_RWX on book3s (See patch 12 for details.) > - use LTLBs with STRICT_KERNEL_RWX on 8xx (See patch 14 for a few details.) Hi, I just tested the whole series on my Wii (I didn't test any intermediate steps). Without CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX, it seems to work fine, but with it, I get the following error while booting: > top of MEM2 @ 13F0 > > zImage starting: loaded at 0x0100 (sp: 0x0178afa0) > Allocating 0x166b2c8 bytes for kernel... > Decompressing (0x <- 0x01011000:0x01788398)... > Done! Decompressed 0xf421f4 bytes > > Linux/PowerPC load: root=/dev/mmcblk0p2 rootwait console=usbgecko1 > Finalizing device tree... flat tree at 0x178b7a0 > [0.00] printk: bootconsole [udbg0] enabled > [0.00] Kernel panic - not syncing: ERROR: Failed to allocate > 0x0010 bytes below 0x. > [0.00] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted > 5.0.0-rc1-wii-00038-g335347fa417f #1337 > [0.00] Call Trace: > [0.00] [c0f1ff30] [c00280f0] panic+0x144/0x324 (unreliable) > [0.00] [c0f1ff90] [c0c18a34] memblock_alloc_base+0x34/0x44 > [0.00] [c0f1ffa0] [c0c071e0] MMU_init_hw+0xcc/0x300 > [0.00] [c0f1ffd0] [c0c06554] MMU_init+0x12c/0x198 > [0.00] [c0f1fff0] [c0003418] start_here+0x40/0x78 > [0.00] Rebooting in 180 seconds.. Jonathan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
