Hi Sughosh,
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 at 10:26, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 at 22:38, Ilias Apalodimas
> <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > This reverts commit ("commit a68c9ac5d8af ("efi_memory: do not add U-Boot
> > memory to the memory map")
> > This code was removed when the EFI subsystem started using LMB calls for
> > the reservations. In hindsight it unearthed two problems.
> >
> > The e820 code is adding u-boot memory as EfiReservedMemory while it
> > should look at what LMB added and decide instead of blindly overwriting
> > it. The reason this worked is that we marked that code properly late,
> > when the EFI came up. But now with the LMB changes, the EFI map gets
> > added first and the e820 code overwrites it.
> >
> > The second problem is that we never mark SetVirtualAddressMap as runtime
> > code, which we should according to the spec. Until we fix this the
> > current hack can't go away, at least for architectures that *need* to
> > call SVAM.
> >
> > More specifically x86 currently requires SVAM and sets the NX bit for
> > pages not marked as *_CODE. So unless we do that late, it will crash
> > trying to execute from non-executable memory. It's also worth noting
> > that x86 calls SVAM late in the boot, so this will work until someone
> > decides to overwrite/use BootServicesData from the OS.
> >
> > Notably arm64 disables it explicitly if the VA space is > 48bits, so
> > doesn't suffer from any of these problems.
> >
> > This doesn't really deserve a fixes tag, since it brings back a hack to
> > remedy a situation that was wrong long before that commit, but in case
> > anyone hits the same bug ...
> > Simon sent the original revert in the link, but we need a proper
> > justification for it.
> >
> > Link:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20241112131830.576864-1-...@chromium.org/
> > Fixes: commit a68c9ac5d8af ("efi_memory: do not add U-Boot memory to the
> > memory map")
> > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org>
> > ---
>
> Acked-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org>
>
> Like you mention in the commit message, I don't think it warrants a Fixes tag.
>
> -sughosh
>
> > Apologies for sending v2 so fast but we need this in for the release
> > Changes since v1:
> > - reword the commit message and fix spelling
> >
> > lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c
> > index e493934c7131..edd7da7d8c6e 100644
> > --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c
> > +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c
> > @@ -814,7 +814,16 @@ static void add_u_boot_and_runtime(void)
> > {
> > unsigned long runtime_start, runtime_end, runtime_pages;
> > unsigned long runtime_mask = EFI_PAGE_MASK;
> > -
> > + unsigned long uboot_start, uboot_pages;
> > + unsigned long uboot_stack_size = CONFIG_STACK_SIZE;
> > +
> > + /* Add U-Boot */
> > + uboot_start = ((uintptr_t)map_sysmem(gd->start_addr_sp, 0) -
> > + uboot_stack_size) & ~EFI_PAGE_MASK;
> > + uboot_pages = ((uintptr_t)map_sysmem(gd->ram_top - 1, 0) -
> > + uboot_start + EFI_PAGE_MASK) >> EFI_PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + efi_add_memory_map_pg(uboot_start, uboot_pages,
> > EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_CODE,
> > + false);
> > #if defined(__aarch64__)
> > /*
> > * Runtime Services must be 64KiB aligned according to the
> > --
> > 2.45.2
> >
Thank you for digging into this. It is helpful to add more things to
the commit message, but please redo your patch with a 'git revert' so
we get the correct subject and body, as my patch did.
Regards,
Simon
