From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <email@example.com> To: Guenter Roeck <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: "Jiahui Cen" <email@example.com>, "Ard Biesheuvel" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, "Bjorn Helgaas" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Igor Mammedov" <email@example.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Ard Biesheuvel" <email@example.com> Subject: Re: aarch64 efi boot failures with qemu 6.0+ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 05:01:23 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:12:38PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 7/26/21 9:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 06:00:57PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > (cc Bjorn) > > > > > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 at 11:08, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 7/26/21 12:56 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > On 7/25/21 3:14 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:52:34AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > starting with qemu v6.0, some of my aarch64 efi boot tests no longer > > > > > > > work. Analysis shows that PCI devices with IO ports do not instantiate > > > > > > > in qemu v6.0 (or v6.1-rc0) when booting through efi. The problem affects > > > > > > > (at least) ne2k_pci, tulip, dc390, and am53c974. The problem only > > > > > > > affects > > > > > > > aarch64, not x86/x86_64. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I bisected the problem to commit 0cf8882fd0 ("acpi/gpex: Inform os to > > > > > > > keep firmware resource map"). Since this commit, PCI device BAR > > > > > > > allocation has changed. Taking tulip as example, the kernel reports > > > > > > > the following PCI bar assignments when running qemu v5.2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ 3.921801] pci 0000:00:01.0: [1011:0019] type 00 class 0x020000 > > > > > > > [ 3.922207] pci 0000:00:01.0: reg 0x10: [io 0x0000-0x007f] > > > > > > > [ 3.922505] pci 0000:00:01.0: reg 0x14: [mem 0x10000000-0x1000007f] > > > > > > IIUC, these lines are read back from the BARs > > > > > > > > > > [ 3.927111] pci 0000:00:01.0: BAR 0: assigned [io 0x1000-0x107f] > > > > > > > [ 3.927455] pci 0000:00:01.0: BAR 1: assigned [mem > > > > > > > 0x10000000-0x1000007f] > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... and this is the assignment created by the kernel. > > > > > > > > > > With qemu v6.0, the assignment is reported as follows. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ 3.922887] pci 0000:00:01.0: [1011:0019] type 00 class 0x020000 > > > > > > > [ 3.923278] pci 0000:00:01.0: reg 0x10: [io 0x0000-0x007f] > > > > > > > [ 3.923451] pci 0000:00:01.0: reg 0x14: [mem 0x10000000-0x1000007f] > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem here is that Linux, for legacy reasons, does not support > > > I/O ports <= 0x1000 on PCI, so the I/O assignment created by EFI is > > > rejected. > > > > > > This might make sense on x86, where legacy I/O ports may exist, but on > > > other architectures, this makes no sense. > > > > > > Fixing Linux makes sense but OTOH EFI probably shouldn't create mappings > > that trip up existing guests, right? > > > > I think it is difficult to draw a line. Sure, maybe EFI should not create > such mappings, but then maybe qemu should not suddenly start to enforce > those mappings for existing guests either. I would say both. But about QEMU actually I think you have a point here. Re-reading the spec: 0: No (The operating system shall not ignore the PCI configuration that firmware has done at boot time. However, the operating system is free to configure the devices in this hierarchy that have not been configured by the firmware. There may be a reduced level of hot plug capability support in this hierarchy due to resource constraints. This situation is the same as the legacy situation where this _DSM is not provided.) 1: Yes (The operating system may ignore the PCI configuration that the firmware has done at boot time, and reconfigure/rebalance the resources in the hierarchy.) I think I misread the spec previously, and understood it to mean that 1 means must ignore. In fact 1 gives the most flexibility. So why are we suddenly telling the guest it must not override firmware? The commit log says The diffences could result in resource assignment failure. which is kind of vague ... Jiahui Cen, Igor, what do you think about it? I'm inclined to revert 0cf8882fd06ba0aeb1e90fa6f23fce85504d7e14 at least for now. > For my own testing, I simply reverted commit 0cf8882fd0 in my copy of > qemu. That solves my immediate problem, giving us time to find a solution > that is acceptable for everyone. After all, it doesn't look like anyone > else has noticed the problem, so there is no real urgency. > > Thanks, > Guenter Well it's not like we have an army of testers, I think we should treat each problem report seriously ... -- MST
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-27 9:02 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-07-24 18:52 Guenter Roeck 2021-07-25 22:14 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2021-07-25 22:56 ` Guenter Roeck 2021-07-26 9:08 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-07-26 16:00 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2021-07-26 21:16 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2021-07-26 21:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2021-07-27 4:22 ` Guenter Roeck 2021-07-27 14:25 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2021-07-27 4:45 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2021-07-27 5:12 ` Guenter Roeck 2021-07-27 7:04 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2021-07-27 9:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2021-07-27 9:30 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2021-07-27 9:50 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2021-07-27 10:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2021-07-27 10:14 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2021-07-27 11:18 ` Guenter Roeck 2021-07-27 9:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message] 2021-07-27 10:36 ` Igor Mammedov 2021-07-27 11:32 ` Guenter Roeck 2021-07-28 13:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2021-07-28 13:25 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2021-07-28 14:03 ` Guenter Roeck 2021-07-29 8:08 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-07-29 14:42 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2021-07-29 15:59 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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 \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: aarch64 efi boot failures with qemu 6.0+' \ /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).