linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" and pass acpi=force to enable ACPI

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:21:16 +0530
From:	Parth Dixit <parth.dixit@...aro.org>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....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>,
	"christoffer.dall@...aro.org" <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
	Leif Lindholm <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 21 January 2015 at 21:46, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:05:33PM +0000, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 01/21/2015 10:42 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +0000, Jon Masters wrote:
>> >> On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> >>> I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time services required for
>> >>>    anything? If yes, Xen may have a bigger problem
>> >>
>> >> Yes. At least for some things. For example, installing an Operating
>> >> System would require that you make runtime services calls to set the
>> >> BootOrder/BootNext variables, and so on. Further, we use the GetTime
>> >> service and EFI based reboot to avoid having special drivers. I had
>> >> those added to SBBR as requirements for that reason.
>> >
>> > So what would a kexec'ed kernel do here? Or we usually expect it to be
>> > short lived and doesn't need reboot, nor GetTime.
>>
>> In the use case that I have, it'll use EFI Runtime Servies to handle
>> both the time of day (which it will need) and to subsequently reboot.
>> This is currently being worked on (integration into kdump).
>
> So the EFI run-time services (and EFI tables) will be preserved across
> kexec? Could Xen not to something similar?
>
>> >>> 2. Could a boot loader (either kernel doing kexec or Xen) emulate the
>> >>>    EFI system/config tables and still make them useful to the kernel but
>> >>>    without EFI_BOOT or EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES?
>> >>
>> >> Yes. But again, without the other required pieces (including the
>> >> services function pointers in the systab which are required) you'd crash
>> >> soon after boot trying to make those calls.
>> >
>> > My point was whether you can still pass information like RSDP address
>> > via EFI tables but explicitly disable runtime services so that the
>> > kernel won't try to make such calls (and crash).
>>
>> Yes. As Graeme says, it works just to pass in the ACPI information and
>> turn off EFI *BUT* it does not work to say you have EFI and then not
>> provide the correct EFI services. To do so is out of spec, and in fact
>> it's one reason we weren't able to turn the GetTime service on generally
>> for x86 - some older x86 boxes didn't implement it originally (another
>> reason on our end we're requiring all of these services on day one so
>> that there won't be time for someone to miss them in firmware).
This is the use case i am talking about, we have a wroking setup with
efi disabled
and rsdp passed via dtb, right now its done by adding a "rsdp" field
in the chosen node.
Do we have a formal way to pass RSDP without EFI? if not, it would be
good to have dtb binding
which we can use to pass RSDP address to kernel for ACPI.
> OK, thanks for confirming this. So the answer to my second question is
> "not really".
>
> --
> Catalin
--
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/