| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <54BE4770.6000100@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:17:52 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC: Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"wangyijing@...wei.com" <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com>,
"phoenix.liyi@...wei.com" <phoenix.liyi@...wei.com>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"graeme.gregory@...aro.org" <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, leif.lindholm@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi"
and pass acpi=force to enable ACPI
On 2015年01月20日 19:10, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:29:14AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +0000, Jon Masters wrote:
>>>>> On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +0000
>>>>>> , Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> From: Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
>>>>>>>>>> will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
>>>>>>>>>> enable ACPI on ARM64.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Disable ACPI before early parameters parsed, and enable it to pass
>>>>>>>>>> "acpi=force" if people want use ACPI on ARM64. This ensures DT be
>>>>>>>>>> the prefer one if ACPI table and DT both are provided at this moment.
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
>>>>>>>>>> #include <asm/memblock.h>
>>>>>>>>>> #include <asm/psci.h>
>>>>>>>>>> #include <asm/efi.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <asm/acpi.h>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> unsigned int processor_id;
>>>>>>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(processor_id);
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -388,6 +389,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
>>>>>>>>>> early_fixmap_init();
>>>>>>>>>> early_ioremap_init();
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> + disable_acpi();
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> parse_early_param();
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did we get to any conclusion here? DT being the preferred one is fine
>>>>>>>>> when both DT and ACPI are present but do we still want the kernel to
>>>>>>>>> ignore ACPI altogether if DT is not present? It's a bit harder to detect
>>>>>>>>> the presence of DT at this point since the EFI_STUB added one already. I
>>>>>>>>> guess we could move the "acpi=force" argument passing to EFI_STUB if no
>>>>>>>>> DT is present at boot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the EFI stub populates the /chosen node in DT, I would prefer
>>>>>>>> for it to add a property there to indicate whether it created the DT
>>>>>>>> from scratch rather than adding ACPI specific stuff in there (even if
>>>>>>>> it is just a string to concatenate)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This works for me. So we could pass "acpi=force" in EFI stub if it
>>>>>>> created the DT from scratch *and* ACPI tables are present (can it detect
>>>>>>> the latter? And maybe it could print something if none are available).
>>>>>>> If that works, the actual kernel can assume that ACPI needs to be
>>>>>>> explicitly enabled via acpi=force, irrespective of how much information
>>>>>>> it has in DT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ditto for me. I think this is a fine solution. And, yes, the stub can
>>>>>> easily detect the presence of ACPI by looking in the UEFI config table.
>>>>>
>>>>> I get the point behind doing this, but could we not have it pass in a
>>>>> different parameter than =force? Perhaps something new? I'd like to
>>>>> separate out the case that it was enabled automatically vs explicitly
>>>>> forced on by a user wanting to use ACPI on a system with both tables.
>>>>
>>>> Ard had a point, so we should probably not pass acpi=force from EFI stub
>>>> (especially since a user may explicitly pass acpi=off irrespective of DT
>>>> presence). Some other property in the chosen node? It's not even an ABI
>>>> since that's a contract between EFI stub and the rest of the kernel, so
>>>> an in-kernel only interface.
>>>
>>> Not strictly true once kexec is in place. Then it becomes a stub ->
>>> kernel -> kernel -> kernel -> ... interface, alnog with the rest of the
>>> properties the stub puts in the DTB.
>>>
>>> Having something like /chosen/linux,uefi-stub-generated-dtb sounds sane
>>> regardless.
>>
>> How about the patch (just RFC, maybe it is horrible :) ) below:
>>
>> When system supporting both DT and ACPI but firmware providing
>> no dtb, we can use this linux,uefi-stub-generated-dtb property
>> to let kernel know that we can try ACPI configuration data.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/chosen.txt | 19 ++++++++++++++++
>> arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 34
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c | 6 +++++
>> 3 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/chosen.txt
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/chosen.txt
>> index ed838f4..18776b9 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/chosen.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/chosen.txt
>> @@ -44,3 +44,22 @@ Implementation note: Linux will look for the property
>> "linux,stdout-path" or
>> on PowerPC "stdout" if "stdout-path" is not found. However, the
>> "linux,stdout-path" and "stdout" properties are deprecated. New platforms
>> should only use the "stdout-path" property.
>> +
>> +
>> +linux,uefi-stub-generated-dtb property
>> +--------------------------------------
>> +
>> +UEFI stub will generate this property in the chosen node to let linux
>> kernel
>> +know that there is no DTB provided by firmware.
>> +
>> +There is a use case for system supporting both DT and ACPI, when firmware
>> +doesn't provide DT, we can try ACPI configration data to boot the system.
>
> I don't think we need to list potential use cases here, this can be
> useful regardless of UEFI.
OK.
>
> The other UEFI stub properties currently live under
> Documentation/arm/uefi.txt. This should live with them.
OK, will update in next version.
>
>> +
>> +Usage:
>> +
>> +linux,uefi-stub-generated-dtb = "true" means that it is true that the dtb
>> +is generated by uefi stub
>> +
>> +or
>> +
>> +linux,uefi-stub-generated-dtb = "false" is the reverse.
>
> I imagined this would be an empty property. It would only be present if
> the stub generated the DTB, and has no value:
>
> /chosen {
> linux,uefi-stub-generated-dtb;
> };
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>> index 54e39e3..8268c7b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>> @@ -371,6 +371,31 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +int __init dt_scan_chosen(unsigned long node, const char *uname,
>> + int depth, void *data)
>> +{
>> + const char *p;
>> +
>> + if (depth != 1 || !data ||
>> + (strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0 && strcmp(uname, "chosen@0") != 0))
>> + return 0;
>
> Do we ever generate chosen@0, and do we even accept that?
Sorry, I have limited knowledge about the history of DT, so I think you
meant that I just need to check strcmp(uname, "chosen") here, right?
>
>> +
>> + p = of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "linux,uefi-stub-generated-dtb", NULL);
>> + if (!p && !strcmp(p, "true"))
>> + *data = true;
>> +
>> + return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static bool __init is_uefi_stub_generated_dtb(void)
>> +{
>> + bool flag = false;
>> +
>> + of_scan_flat_dt(dt_scan_chosen, &flag);
>> +
>> + return flag;
>> +}
>> +
>> u64 __cpu_logical_map[NR_CPUS] = { [0 ... NR_CPUS-1] = INVALID_HWID };
>>
>> void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
>> @@ -389,7 +414,14 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
>> early_fixmap_init();
>> early_ioremap_init();
>>
>> - disable_acpi();
>> + /*
>> + * If no dtb provided by firmware, enable ACPI
>> + * and try to boot with ACPI configuration data
>> + */
>> + if (is_uefi_stub_generated_dtb())
>> + enable_acpi();
>> + else
>> + disable_acpi();
>>
>> parse_early_param();
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
>> b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
>> index c846a96..9e2084b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/fdt.c
>> @@ -154,6 +154,12 @@ efi_status_t update_fdt(efi_system_table_t
>> *sys_table, void *orig_fdt,
>> if (status)
>> goto fdt_set_fail;
>>
>> + /* Add a property to show the dtb is generated by uefi stub or not */
>> + status = fdt_setprop_string(fdt, node, "linux,uefi-stub-generated-dtb",
>> + orig_fdt ? "false" : "true");
>> + if (status)
>> + goto fdt_set_fail;
>> +
>
> This should create an empty property, and only when generated by the
> stub.
OK. could you give me some guidance to use which API to create an
empty property? I try to find but failed.
Thanks for the review!
Hanjun
--
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