All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] remove UEFI reserved regions from the linear mapping
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:55:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151112155523.GD26564@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1446126059-25336-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:40:56PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> This is yet another approach to solving the issues around removing RAM
> regions known to UEFI from the linear mapping while preserving the record
> of the fact that these regions are backed by memory.
> 
> The previous approach added a memblock flag called MEMBLOCK_NOMAP to keep
> track of RAM regions that should be removed from the linear mapping.
> 
> The primary motivation for the new approach is the observation that there
> is only a single use case that requires this, which is acpi_os_ioremap().
> Since ACPI implies UEFI on arm64 platforms, and since acpi_os_ioremap()
> uses page_is_ram() internally (which is a __weak generic function), we
> can simply reimplement page_is_ram() to take the UEFI memory map into
> account if we are booted via UEFI.

Just to check, is the above the only reason for this new approach? Or
were there other issues with the MEMBLOCK_NOMAP approach other than the
diffstat?

I quite liked the MEMBLOCK_NOMAP approach as it looked reusable.

> Once we have a page_is_ram() implementation in place that will return true
> even for RAM that is known to UEFI but not covered by the linear mapping,
> we can remove all UEFI reserved and runtime regions from the linear mapping
> as well.

I take it there aren't any lurking instances of page_is_ram() used to
test if something exists in the linear mapping?

> As is obvious from the diffstat, this is the approach with the least impact,
> both in terms of number of changes and in terms of the locality of the changes.
> If we end up needing this information for other reasons (e.g., /dev/mem access
> to /reserved-memory subnodes with the nomap property on !EFI systems), we can
> always revisit this, but for now, I think this approach is the most suitable.
> 
> Patch #1 slightly reorders the UEFI runtime services initialization routines
> so that the EFI_MEMMAP flag is only set if the permanent mapping of the UEFI
> memory map is in place.

This also means that the memory map is mapped even with EFI runtime
support disabled, but I guess that's not a big problem.

As a side thought, it would be nice if we could memremap_ro the system
table and memory map in future to prevent potential corruption, given
they have fixed VAs and are always mapped.

Thanks,
Mark.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-11-12 15:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-29 13:40 [PATCH 0/3] remove UEFI reserved regions from the linear mapping Ard Biesheuvel
2015-10-29 13:40 ` [PATCH 1/3] arm64/efi: set EFI_MEMMAP bit only after mapping the memory map Ard Biesheuvel
2015-11-12 15:14   ` Matt Fleming
2015-10-29 13:40 ` [PATCH 2/3] arm64: reimplement page_is_ram() using memblock and UEFI " Ard Biesheuvel
2015-11-12 15:31   ` Matt Fleming
2015-11-12 15:40     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-11-12 16:03       ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-12 16:06         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-10-29 13:40 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm64/efi: memblock_remove() rather than _reserve UEFI reserved memory Ard Biesheuvel
2015-11-12 15:55 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2015-11-12 16:01   ` [PATCH 0/3] remove UEFI reserved regions from the linear mapping Ard Biesheuvel
2015-11-12 16:13     ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-12 16:30       ` Ard Biesheuvel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20151112155523.GD26564@leverpostej \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.