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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 4C8E4C33CAA for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 12:19:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C72320882 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 12:19:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726642AbgATMT3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2020 07:19:29 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:5008 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727045AbgATMT2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2020 07:19:28 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Jan 2020 04:19:28 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,342,1574150400"; d="scan'208";a="426712609" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com (HELO smile) ([10.237.68.40]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2020 04:19:26 -0800 Received: from andy by smile with local (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1itW1f-0001Is-44; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:19:27 +0200 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:19:27 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Dave Young Cc: Jean Delvare , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Mika Westerberg , Eric Biederman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, matt@codeblueprint.co.uk, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] firmware: dmi_scan: Pass dmi_entry_point to kexec'ed kernel Message-ID: <20200120121927.GJ32742@smile.fi.intel.com> References: <20161202195416.58953-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161217105721.GB6922@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? P.S. I may resend them rebased on recent vanilla. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko