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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C344C47083 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:37:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E272D613AC for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:37:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232707AbhFBIjW (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jun 2021 04:39:22 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:56010 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230074AbhFBIjV (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jun 2021 04:39:21 -0400 IronPort-SDR: 6mV5iKyuCPyF/VXfKuGI1ZQoWbFIpveX2qJa/5NQozMtJ1nnEs2Pz5NwE4LhMJsP03o+JMUiIN D3LJY7aaok+w== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10002"; a="203552545" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.83,241,1616482800"; d="scan'208";a="203552545" Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Jun 2021 01:37:36 -0700 IronPort-SDR: 3HcU50jAvQQdG4lEivqVDlJNYPW5yq7Tw66p37ZP/PkNh1n2kHYR95vaS1khN+LKc3HNi0uWlF GEC1J5OYbOXA== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.83,241,1616482800"; d="scan'208";a="467376011" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com (HELO smile) ([10.237.68.40]) by fmsmga004-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Jun 2021 01:37:32 -0700 Received: from andy by smile with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1loMNV-00Gf0T-Kx; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:37:29 +0300 Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:37:29 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Ard Biesheuvel , Javier =?iso-8859-1?B?VGnh?= Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Dave Young , linux-efi , Matt Fleming , Kexec Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Mika Westerberg , Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] firmware: dmi_scan: Pass dmi_entry_point to kexec'ed kernel Message-ID: References: <20161202195416.58953-3-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20161215122856.7d24b7a8@endymion> <20161216023213.GA4505@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <1481890738.9552.70.camel@linux.intel.com> <20161216143330.69e9c8ee@endymion> <20161217105721.GB6922@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <20200120121927.GJ32742@smile.fi.intel.com> <87a76i9ksr.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:18:03AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 23:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 9:28 PM Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > Andy Shevchenko writes: > > > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 06:57:21PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > >> Ccing efi people. > > > >> > > > >> On 12/16/16 at 02:33pm, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > >> > On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:18:58 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > >> > > On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 10:32 +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > >> > > > On 12/15/16 at 12:28pm, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > >> > > > > I am no kexec expert but this confuses me. Shouldn't the second > > > >> > > > > kernel have access to the EFI systab as the first kernel does? It > > > >> > > > > includes many more pointers than just ACPI and DMI tables, and it > > > >> > > > > would seem inconvenient to have to pass all these addresses > > > >> > > > > individually explicitly. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Yes, in modern linux kernel, kexec has the support for EFI, I think it > > > >> > > > should work naturally at least in x86_64. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks for this good news! > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Unfortunately Intel Galileo is 32-bit platform. > > > >> > > > > >> > If it was done for X86_64 then maybe it can be generalized to X86? > > > >> > > > >> For X86_64, we have a new way for efi runtime memmory mapping, in i386 > > > >> code it still use old ioremap way. It is impossible to use same way as > > > >> the X86_64 since the virtual address space is limited. > > > >> > > > >> But maybe for 32bit, kexec kernel can run in physical mode, but I'm not > > > >> sure, I would suggest Andy to do a test first with efi=noruntime for > > > >> kexec 2nd kernel. > > > > > > > > Guys, it was quite a long no hear from you. As I told you the proposed work > > > > around didn't help. Today I found that Microsoft Surface 3 also affected > > > > by this. > > > > > > > > Can we apply these patches for now until you will find better > > > > solution? > > > > > > Not a chance. The patches don't apply to any kernel in the git history. > > > > > > Which may be part of your problem. You are or at least were running > > > with code that has not been merged upstream. > > > > It's done against linux-next. > > Applied clearly. (Not the version in this more than yearly old series > > of course, that's why I told I can resend) > > > > > > P.S. I may resend them rebased on recent vanilla. > > > > > > Second. I looked at your test results and they don't directly make > > > sense. dmidecode bypasses the kernel completely or it did last time > > > I looked so I don't know why you would be using that to test if > > > something in the kernel is working. > > > > > > However dmidecode failing suggests that the actual problem is something > > > in the first kernel is stomping the dmi tables. > > > > See below. > > > > > Adding a command line option won't fix stomped tables. > > > > It provides a mechanism, which seems to be absent, to the second > > kernel to know where to look for SMBIOS tables. > > > > > So what I would suggest is: > > > a) Verify that dmidecode works before kexec. > > > > Yes, it does. > > > > > b) Test to see if dmidecode works after kexec. > > > > No, it doesn't. > > > > > c) Once (a) shows that dmidecode works and (b) shows that dmidecode > > > fails figure out what is stomping your dmi tables during or before > > > kexec and that is what should get fixed. > > > > The problem here as I can see it that EFI and kexec protocols are not > > friendly to each other. > > I'm not an expert in either. That's why I'm asking for possible > > solutions. And this needs to be done in kernel to allow drivers to > > work. > > > > Does the > > > > commit 4996c02306a25def1d352ec8e8f48895bbc7dea9 > > Author: Takao Indoh > > Date: Thu Jul 14 18:05:21 2011 -0400 > > > > ACPI: introduce "acpi_rsdp=" parameter for kdump > > > > description shed a light on this? > > > > > Now using a non-efi method of dmi detection relies on the > > > tables being between 0xF0000 and 0x10000. AKA the last 64K > > > of the first 1MiB of memory. You might check to see if your > > > dmi tables are in that address range. > > > > # dmidecode --no-sysfs > > # dmidecode 3.2 > > Scanning /dev/mem for entry point. > > # No SMBIOS nor DMI entry point found, sorry. > > > > === with patch applied === > > # dmidecode > > ... > > Release Date: 03/10/2015 > > ... > > > > > > > > Otherwise I suspect the good solution is to give efi it's own page > > > tables in the kernel and switch to it whenever efi functions are called. > > > > > > > > But on 32bit the Linux kernel has historically been just fine directly > > > accessing the hardware, and ignoring efi and all of the other BIOS's. > > > > It seems not only for 32-bit Linux kernel anymore. MS Surface 3 runs > > 64-bit code. > > > > > So if that doesn't work on Intel Galileo that is probably a firmware > > > problem. > > > > It's not only about Galileo anymore. > > > > Looking at the x86 kexec EFI code, it seems that it has special > handling for the legacy SMBIOS table address, but not for the SMBIOS3 > table address, which was introduced to accommodate SMBIOS tables > living in memory that is not 32-bit addressable. > > Could anyone check whether these systems provide SMBIOS 3.0 tables, > and whether their address gets virtually remapped at ExitBootServices? Can you tell how to do this and I will try to get information? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko