linux-efi.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams.korg@gmail.com>,
	linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michael Weiser <michael@weiser.dinsnail.net>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: update e820 about reserved EFI boot services data to fix kexec breakage
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 18:49:21 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191230104921.GA16888@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4hT9HXN2CqZw96zqgdNaapc=9oqSYvGrnEbeqSmx0t5xw@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/30/19 at 01:42am, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 10:13 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 12:54 PM Dan Williams
> > <dan.j.williams.korg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:53 PM Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Michael Weiser reported he got below error during a kexec rebooting:
> > > > esrt: Unsupported ESRT version 2904149718861218184.
> > > >
> > > > The ESRT memory stays in EFI boot services data, and it was reserved
> > > > in kernel via efi_mem_reserve().  The initial purpose of the reservation
> > > > is to reuse the EFI boot services data across kexec reboot. For example
> > > > the BGRT image data and some ESRT memory like Michael reported.
> > > >
> > > > But although the memory is reserved it is not updated in X86 e820 table.
> > > > And kexec_file_load iterate system ram in io resource list to find places
> > > > for kernel, initramfs and other stuff. In Michael's case the kexec loaded
> > > > initramfs overwritten the ESRT memory and then the failure happened.
> > > >
> > > > Since kexec_file_load depends on the e820 to be updated, just fix this
> > > > by updating the reserved EFI boot services memory as reserved type in e820.
> > > >
> > > > Originally any memory descriptors with EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME attribute are
> > > > bypassed in the reservation code path because they are assumed as reserved.
> > > > But the reservation is still needed for multiple kexec reboot.
> > > > And it is the only possible case we come here thus just drop the code
> > > > chunk then everything works without side effects.
> > > >
> > > > On my machine the ESRT memory sits in an EFI runtime data range, it does
> > > > not trigger the problem, but I successfully tested with BGRT instead.
> > > > both kexec_load and kexec_file_load work and kdump works as well.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c |    6 ++----
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > --- linux-x86.orig/arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c
> > > > +++ linux-x86/arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c
> > > > @@ -260,10 +260,6 @@ void __init efi_arch_mem_reserve(phys_ad
> > > >                 return;
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > -       /* No need to reserve regions that will never be freed. */
> > > > -       if (md.attribute & EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME)
> > > > -               return;
> > > > -
> > > >         size += addr % EFI_PAGE_SIZE;
> > > >         size = round_up(size, EFI_PAGE_SIZE);
> > > >         addr = round_down(addr, EFI_PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > @@ -293,6 +289,8 @@ void __init efi_arch_mem_reserve(phys_ad
> > > >         early_memunmap(new, new_size);
> > > >
> > > >         efi_memmap_install(new_phys, num_entries);
> > > > +       e820__range_update(addr, size, E820_TYPE_RAM, E820_TYPE_RESERVED);
> > > > +       e820__update_table(e820_table);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  /*
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bisect says this change (commit af1648984828) is triggering a
> > > regression, likely not urgent, in my testing of the new efi_fake_mem=
> > > facility to allow memory to be marked "soft reserved" via the kernel
> > > command line (commit 199c84717612 x86/efi: Add efi_fake_mem support
> > > for EFI_MEMORY_SP). The following command line triggers the crash
> > > signature below:
> > >
> > >     efi_fake_mem=4G@9G:0x40000,4G@13G:0x40000
> > >
> > > However, this command line works ok:
> > >
> > >     efi_fake_mem=8G@9G:0x40000
> > >
> > > So, something about multiple efi_fake_mem statements interacts badly
> > > with this change. Nothing obvious occurs to me at the moment, I'll
> > > keep debugging, but wanted to highlight this in the meantime in case
> > > someone else sees a deeper issue or the root cause.
> >
> > Still looking, but this failure does not seem to be specific to the
> > "soft reservation" changes. Any update to the efi memmap that pushes
> > it over a page boundary triggers this failure. I.e. I can fix the
> > problem by over-allocating the efi memmap and then page aligning the
> > result. __early_ioremap "should" be handling this case, but it appears
> > something else is messing this up.
> 
> Found it. Neither this patch nor the soft reservation changes are at
> fault, they are just helping to trigger a long standing bug in
> efi_fake_memmap(). Its usage of efi_memmap_split_count() can over
> count the number of splits needed for new entries. Consider the case
> of 2 contiguous fake entries intersecting the end of a single entry.
> The first call to efi_memmap_split_count() determines the resulting
> split will be (old1, new1, old2), the second call determines (old1,
> new2). The result is 2 splits when only 1 is needed to get a result of
> (old1, new1, new2) and the new map ends up with an empty entry.
> efi_memmap_install() interprets an empty entry as start = 0 end =
> 0xffffffffffffffff and attempts an extra split / copy past the end of
> the new map.
> 
> I'll send a patch to fix up efi_fake_memmap().
> 

Cool, I also noticed if two of fake mem used, we only get one md with
"SP" attribute in print_efi_memmap, that is the root cause.

Thanks
Dave


  reply	other threads:[~2019-12-30 10:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-12-04  7:52 [PATCH] x86/efi: update e820 about reserved EFI boot services data to fix kexec breakage Dave Young
2019-12-04  7:59 ` Dave Young
2019-12-04 10:09   ` Ingo Molnar
2019-12-04 10:14   ` Ingo Molnar
2019-12-04 10:24     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-12-05 10:55     ` Dave Young
2019-12-05 21:15       ` Michael Weiser
2019-12-04 11:31   ` Michael Weiser
2019-12-04 10:21 ` [tip: x86/urgent] x86/efi: Update e820 with " tip-bot2 for Dave Young
2019-12-28 20:54 ` [PATCH] x86/efi: update e820 about " Dan Williams
2019-12-29  6:13   ` Dan Williams
2019-12-29 14:24     ` Dave Young
2019-12-30  3:32       ` Dave Young
2019-12-30  5:55         ` Dave Young
2019-12-30  9:42     ` Dan Williams
2019-12-30 10:49       ` Dave Young [this message]
2019-12-30 20:16       ` Dan Williams

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=20191230104921.GA16888@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com \
    --to=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dan.j.williams.korg@gmail.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=michael@weiser.dinsnail.net \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).