From: "bhe@redhat.com" <bhe@redhat.com> To: Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, "fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com" <fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>, "kasong@redhat.com" <kasong@redhat.com>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, "kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/boot: Use EFI setup data if provided Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:11:00 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190328231100.GC1877@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190328074337.GA9470@jeru.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> On 03/28/19 at 07:43am, Junichi Nomura wrote: > On 2019/03/28 15:43, bhe@redhat.com wrote: > > On 03/28/19 at 04:17am, Junichi Nomura wrote: > >> I still don't get it... We still need systab for kexec case as well > >> to get nr_tables. Don't we? > > > > Yes, simpler. > > > > As Dave replied in another mail, efi/kexec is only added for x86_64. See > > how it does in setup_linux_system_parameters() of kexec_tools utility, > > and we only have bzImage64 handling in kernel for kexec_file loading, > > see prepare_add_efi_setup_data(). > > > > You may only need to get kexec ei_info to use directly. > > OK, let me try. How does this look? Yes, it looks great. Thanks. Some tiny concenrns added in inline comments, please check. > > Commit 3a63f70bf4c3a ("x86/boot: Early parse RSDP and save it in > boot_params") broke kexec boot on EFI systems. efi_get_rsdp_addr() > in the early parsing code tries to search RSDP from EFI table but > that will crash because the table address is virtual when the kernel > was booted by kexec. > > Since kexec(1) provides physical address of the table via efi_setup_data, > early boot code of kexec-ed kernel should look for setup_data in the same > way as efi_systab_init() in arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c does. > > Fixes: 3a63f70bf4c3a ("x86/boot: Early parse RSDP and save it in boot_params") > Signed-off-by: Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com> > Cc: Chao Fan <fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> > Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com> > Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/acpi.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/acpi.c > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/acpi.c > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/acpi.c > @@ -44,17 +44,106 @@ static acpi_physical_address get_acpi_rsdp(void) > return addr; > } > > +static unsigned long efi_get_kexec_setup_data_addr(void) > +{ > +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI > + struct setup_data *data; > + u64 pa_data; > + > + pa_data = boot_params->hdr.setup_data; > + while (pa_data) { > + data = (struct setup_data *) pa_data; > + if (data->type == SETUP_EFI) > + return pa_data + sizeof(struct setup_data); > + pa_data = data->next; > + } > +#endif > + return 0; > +} > + > /* Search EFI system tables for RSDP. */ > -static acpi_physical_address efi_get_rsdp_addr(void) > +static acpi_physical_address __efi_get_rsdp_addr(unsigned long config_tables, unsigned int nr_tables, int size, bool efi_64) Here parameter 'size' and 'efi_64' seems a little duplicated on functionality. Only passing efi_64 can deduce the size? Personal opinion. > { > acpi_physical_address rsdp_addr = 0; > > #ifdef CONFIG_EFI > - unsigned long systab, systab_tables, config_tables; > + int i; > + > + /* Get EFI tables from systab. */ > + for (i = 0; i < nr_tables; i++) { > + acpi_physical_address table; > + efi_guid_t guid; > + > + config_tables += size; > + > + if (efi_64) { > + efi_config_table_64_t *tbl = (efi_config_table_64_t *)config_tables; > + > + guid = tbl->guid; > + table = tbl->table; > + > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64) && table >> 32) { > + debug_putstr("Error getting RSDP address: EFI config table located above 4GB.\n"); > + return 0; > + } > + } else { > + efi_config_table_32_t *tbl = (efi_config_table_32_t *)config_tables; > + > + guid = tbl->guid; > + table = tbl->table; > + } > + > + if (!(efi_guidcmp(guid, ACPI_TABLE_GUID))) > + rsdp_addr = table; > + else if (!(efi_guidcmp(guid, ACPI_20_TABLE_GUID))) > + return table; > + } > +#endif > + return rsdp_addr; > +} > + It might be worth adding code comments here to tell why we only care about 64bit kexec booting? > +static acpi_physical_address kexec_get_rsdp_addr(void) > +{ > +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI > + struct efi_setup_data *esd; > + efi_system_table_64_t *systab; > + struct efi_info *ei; > + char *sig; > + > + esd = (struct efi_setup_data *) efi_get_kexec_setup_data_addr(); > + if (!esd) > + return 0; > + if (!esd->tables) { > + debug_putstr("Wrong kexec SETUP_EFI data.\n"); > + return 0; > + } > + > + ei = &boot_params->efi_info; > + sig = (char *)&ei->efi_loader_signature; > + if (strncmp(sig, EFI64_LOADER_SIGNATURE, 4)) { > + debug_putstr("Wrong EFI loader signature.\n"); > + return 0; > + } > + > + /* Get systab from boot params. */ > + systab = (efi_system_table_64_t *) (ei->efi_systab | ((__u64)ei->efi_systab_hi << 32)); > + if (!systab) > + error("EFI system table not found."); > + > + return __efi_get_rsdp_addr((unsigned long) esd->tables, systab->nr_tables, sizeof(efi_config_table_64_t), true); > +#else > + return 0; > +#endif > +} > + > +static acpi_physical_address efi_get_rsdp_addr(void) > +{ > +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI > + unsigned long systab, config_tables; > unsigned int nr_tables; > struct efi_info *ei; > bool efi_64; > - int size, i; > + int size; > char *sig; > > ei = &boot_params->efi_info; > @@ -100,37 +189,10 @@ static acpi_physical_address efi_get_rsdp_addr(void) > if (!config_tables) > error("EFI config tables not found."); > > - /* Get EFI tables from systab. */ > - for (i = 0; i < nr_tables; i++) { > - acpi_physical_address table; > - efi_guid_t guid; > - > - config_tables += size; > - > - if (efi_64) { > - efi_config_table_64_t *tbl = (efi_config_table_64_t *)config_tables; > - > - guid = tbl->guid; > - table = tbl->table; > - > - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64) && table >> 32) { > - debug_putstr("Error getting RSDP address: EFI config table located above 4GB.\n"); > - return 0; > - } > - } else { > - efi_config_table_32_t *tbl = (efi_config_table_32_t *)config_tables; > - > - guid = tbl->guid; > - table = tbl->table; > - } > - > - if (!(efi_guidcmp(guid, ACPI_TABLE_GUID))) > - rsdp_addr = table; > - else if (!(efi_guidcmp(guid, ACPI_20_TABLE_GUID))) > - return table; > - } > + return __efi_get_rsdp_addr(config_tables, nr_tables, size, efi_64); > +#else > + return 0; > #endif > - return rsdp_addr; > } > > static u8 compute_checksum(u8 *buffer, u32 length) > @@ -221,6 +283,9 @@ acpi_physical_address get_rsdp_addr(void) > pa = boot_params->acpi_rsdp_addr; > > if (!pa) > + pa = kexec_get_rsdp_addr(); > + > + if (!pa) > pa = efi_get_rsdp_addr(); > > if (!pa)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-28 23:11 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-03-22 11:03 [PATCH] " Junichi Nomura 2019-03-22 15:23 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-03-25 0:27 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-03-25 6:01 ` Dave Young 2019-03-25 6:19 ` Dave Young 2019-03-25 6:45 ` Kairui Song 2019-03-25 6:47 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-03-25 6:59 ` Dave Young 2019-03-25 8:27 ` [PATCH v2] " Junichi Nomura 2019-03-25 8:54 ` Boris Petkov 2019-03-25 9:25 ` [PATCH v2] x86/boot: Don't try to search RSDP from EFI when kexec-booted Junichi Nomura 2019-03-25 10:15 ` [PATCH v2] x86/boot: Use EFI setup data if provided Dave Young 2019-03-25 10:36 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-03-25 11:16 ` Dave Young 2019-03-25 12:01 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-03-25 12:23 ` Dave Young 2019-03-25 12:32 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-03-25 23:10 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-03-26 12:46 ` Dave Young 2019-03-26 13:57 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-03-27 1:48 ` bhe 2019-03-27 12:14 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-03-28 4:17 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-03-28 6:26 ` Chao Fan 2019-03-28 6:43 ` bhe 2019-03-28 7:43 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-03-28 15:52 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-03-29 3:05 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-03-29 8:39 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-03-29 9:05 ` Chao Fan 2019-03-29 9:16 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-03-29 9:37 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-03-29 9:44 ` Chao Fan 2019-03-29 9:56 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-03-29 7:20 ` [PATCH] x86/boot: Use efi_setup_data for searching RSDP on kexec-ed kernel Junichi Nomura 2019-03-29 7:49 ` bhe 2019-03-29 8:29 ` Chao Fan 2019-03-29 8:39 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-03-29 9:18 ` Chao Fan 2019-03-29 9:16 ` bhe 2019-03-29 9:20 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-01 0:08 ` [PATCH v2] " Junichi Nomura 2019-04-02 9:41 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-02 9:53 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-04-02 11:06 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-02 10:22 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-04-02 12:03 ` Dave Young 2019-04-03 5:35 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-03 5:53 ` Dave Young 2019-04-03 6:39 ` Dave Young 2019-04-03 7:30 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-03 7:50 ` bhe 2019-04-03 8:23 ` Dave Young 2019-04-03 8:26 ` Dave Young 2019-04-03 16:14 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-04-04 1:02 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-03 9:28 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-03 7:21 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-03 8:09 ` Dave Young 2019-04-03 8:23 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-03 9:02 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-03 9:39 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-04 1:23 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-04-04 2:52 ` Dave Young 2019-04-04 3:00 ` bhe 2019-04-04 3:10 ` bhe 2019-04-04 3:22 ` Dave Young 2019-04-04 6:41 ` Dave Young 2019-04-04 7:20 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-04 7:41 ` Dave Young 2019-04-04 7:48 ` Chao Fan 2019-04-04 12:22 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-04-04 14:08 ` Dave Young 2019-04-03 8:18 ` Dave Young 2019-04-02 10:25 ` [PATCH v3] " Junichi Nomura 2019-04-04 7:32 ` Dave Young 2019-04-04 12:24 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-04-04 14:12 ` Dave Young 2019-04-04 14:41 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-04-05 1:36 ` Dave Young 2019-04-05 4:19 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-03-28 23:11 ` bhe [this message] 2019-03-29 3:34 ` [PATCH v2] x86/boot: Use EFI setup data if provided Junichi Nomura 2019-03-29 3:52 ` bhe 2019-03-29 5:16 ` Junichi Nomura 2019-03-25 7:27 ` [PATCH] " Baoquan He 2019-03-25 7:53 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-03-25 8:21 ` Baoquan He 2019-03-25 8:43 ` Thomas Gleixner 2019-03-25 9:03 ` Baoquan He
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=20190328231100.GC1877@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \ --to=bhe@redhat.com \ --cc=bp@alien8.de \ --cc=dyoung@redhat.com \ --cc=fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \ --cc=j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com \ --cc=kasong@redhat.com \ --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=x86@kernel.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v2] x86/boot: Use EFI setup data if provided' \ /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
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).