[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140908140609.GI12081@leverpostej>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:06:09 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: "msalter@...hat.com" <msalter@...hat.com>
Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
"matt.fleming@...el.com" <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/arm64: fix fdt-related memory reservation
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 02:31:42PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> Commit 86c8b27a01cf:
> "arm64: ignore DT memreserve entries when booting in UEFI mode
>
> prevents early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem() from being called for
> arm64 kernels booting via UEFI. This was done because the kernel
> will use the UEFI memory map to determine reserved memory regions.
> That approach has problems in that early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem()
> also reserves the FDT itself and any node-specific reserved memory.
> By chance of some kernel configs, the FDT may be overwritten before
> it can be unflattened and the kernel will fail to boot. More subtle
> problems will result if the FDT has node specific reserved memory
> which is not really reserved.
That doesn't sound like fun; apologies for allowing such brokenness
through in the first place.
[...]
> + /*
> + * Delete all memory reserve map entries. When booting via UEFI,
> + * kernel will use the UEFI memory map to find reserved regions.
> + */
> + num_rsv = fdt_num_mem_rsv(fdt);
> + for (i = 0; i < num_rsv; i++)
> + fdt_del_mem_rsv(fdt, i);
I don't think that's right. Won't the memreserve entries shift down by
one each time we call fdt_del_mem_rsv?
Shouldn't this be something like:
while (fdt_num_mem_rsv(fdt))
fdt_del_mem_rsv(fdt, 0);
Or we could count downwards.
Otherwise, the general approach sounds sane to me, so with that bug
fixed or disproven:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Given this is mostly in the EFI stub I expect that this will go via the
EFI tree?
Mark.
> +
> node = fdt_subnode_offset(fdt, 0, "chosen");
> if (node < 0) {
> node = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, 0, "chosen");
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists