[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1410186065.27715.2.camel@deneb.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:21:05 -0400
From: Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....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
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 15:06 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 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.
Heh. It was obvious that DT unflattening was broken, but bisecting
didn't help much because I kept finding patches which when reverted
made the problem go away even though they obviously weren't the
cause.
>
> [...]
>
> > + /*
> > + * 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.
>
Sigh. Yes, you are right. I only tested with one reserved region.
I think counting down would be the way to go. I'll send a fixed
patch shortly.
--
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