From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32DA1C678D4 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 15:06:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230167AbjCBPGz (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:06:55 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39190 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230324AbjCBPGu (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:06:50 -0500 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5506C55072 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 07:06:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D839E615F6 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 15:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF997C433A1; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 15:06:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1677769594; bh=FdJDrtgvO+zazRZyI/ANj+54LorzkRO9vTG33XftdBc=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:From; b=Xkgd+P4X22UqIdrQRfjP6APYKx49gMV6gtd9XZM13QSdO5jBK3Na/LetFYAO9YcKp t9q9Z6RAC7Hbv6a7+KYBm5F38FeVB8XLEliWhAWXvRW3s2hdhvbuwNna4f5X5DMsuk 3USIvYsF2LVjASIRUt/QjrPWyWJemlnPPFHNVEbB0fkw2g7m/UlrzbYh3+QRG34g2o U9/tzia6M4IuA+/1Ws2PtXF7RiLSoruSBCt4aKKEfDGu/k2mSjGa8V5HjMNq6e1fIc QE4L+J2deLAPwcMgBpGPDnOmYL9CBWLv0eoWXA4ij8ryjybqTT+TfXaqinIUkLg+5t X80DoqGhNnGmQ== Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailauth.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB72B27C0054; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap48 ([10.202.2.98]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 02 Mar 2023 10:06:32 -0500 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudeljedgjeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvfevufgtsehttdertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedftehn ugihucfnuhhtohhmihhrshhkihdfuceolhhuthhosehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrgheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveffgfevhfeiteduueetgeevvdevudevteefveffudeiveefuddt leeitdeludfgnecuffhomhgrihhnpehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrnhguhidomhgvshhmthhprghu thhhphgvrhhsohhnrghlihhthidqudduiedukeehieefvddqvdeifeduieeitdekqdhluh htoheppehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrgheslhhinhhugidrlhhuthhordhush X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ieff94742:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 54A4F31A0064; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:06:32 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-183-gbf7d00f500-fm-20230220.001-gbf7d00f5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <840dcfd4-0d6c-400a-9cf7-8fe56d55ac7f@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20210601075354.5149-2-rppt@kernel.org> <162274330352.29796.17521974349959809425.tip-bot2@tip-bot2> <7d344756-aec4-4df2-9427-da742ef9ce6b@app.fastmail.com> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 07:06:11 -0800 From: "Andy Lutomirski" To: "Borislav Petkov" Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , "Mike Rapoport" , "Hugh Dickins" , "the arch/x86 maintainers" Subject: Re: [tip: x86/urgent] x86/setup: Always reserve the first 1M of RAM Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 2, 2023, at 2:50 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 07:51:43PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> This is quite broken. The comments in the patch seem to understand >> that Linux tries twice to allocate the real mode trampoline, but the >> code has some issues. >> >> First, it actively breaks the logic here: >> >> + /* >> + * Don't free memory under 1M for two reasons: >> + * - BIOS might clobber it >> + * - Crash kernel needs it to be reserved >> + */ >> + if (start + size < SZ_1M) >> + continue; >> + if (start < SZ_1M) { >> + size -= (SZ_1M - start); >> + start = SZ_1M; >> + } >> + > > Are you refering, per-chance, here to your comment in that same function > a bit higher? > > Introduced by this thing here: > > 5bc653b73182 ("x86/efi: Allocate a trampoline if needed in > efi_free_boot_services()") > > ? Yes. > > Also, it looks like Mike did pay attention to your commit: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/YLZsEaimyAe0x6b3@kernel.org/ He definitely did. But I'm still pretty sure the patch in question broke it :-/ > > And then there's the whole deal with kdump kernel needing lowmem. The > function which became obsolete and got removed by: > > 23721c8e92f7 ("x86/crash: Remove crash_reserve_low_1M()") > > So, considering how yours is the only report that breaks booting and > this reservation of <=1M has been out there for ~2 years without any > complaints, I'm thinking what we should do now is fix that logic. > > Btw, this whole effort started with > > a799c2bd29d1 ("x86/setup: Consolidate early memory reservations") > > Also see this: > > ec35d1d93bf8 ("x86/setup: Document that Windows reserves the first MiB") > > and with shit like that, we're "piggybacking" on Windoze since there > certification happens at least. > > Which begs the question: how does your laptop even boot on windoze if > windoze reserves that 1M too?! I haven't booted Windoze on this thing in years. But... There is no possible way that Windoze genuinely reserves the first 1M. It does SMP, and x86 needs <1M memory for SMP, so Windoze uses <1M memory. QED :) > >> I real the commit message and the linked bug, and I'm having trouble >> finding evidence of anything actually fixed by this patch. Can we >> just revert it? If not, it would be nice to get a fixup patch that >> genuinely cleans this up -- the whole structure of the code (first, >> try to allocate trampoline, then free boot services, then try again) >> isn't really conducive to a model where we *don't* free boot services >> < 1M. > > Yes, I think this makes most sense. And that whole area is a minefield > so the less we upset the current universe, the better. I'll send a revert patch. Thinking about this a bit more, if we actually want to "reserve" <1M, we should implement it completely differently by treating <1M as its very own special thing and teaching the memblock allocator to refuse to allocate <1M unless specifically requested. There's only a very small number of allocations that need it (crashkernel for some reason?), and there are at least two spurious users of memblock_phys_alloc_range that curently may use <1M but have no business doing so (ramdisk code and the NUMA distance table). But let's only do that if there's an actual problem to solve. > >> Discovered by my delightful laptop, which does not boot with this patch applied. > > How come your laptop hasn't booted new Linux since then?!? Tztztztz Honestly, no clue. Looking at the logs, I'm pretty sure I *did* boot an affected (6.0) kernel. The actual problematic memory map on this laptop seems to show up a bit inconsistently as some horrible combination of firmware settings (especially SGX) and who-knows-what else. My best guess is that a GRUB update I installed yesterday caused some tiny memory map change that triggered it. I did install a new kernel yesterday too, but the *previous* kernel stopped booting too. > > Thx. > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette