[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu_1vNmNy6vYEdSRW6r97DSxj_t=1LmWFE-nsv7oA=1ApQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 14:05:51 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: Fix the size not consistent issue when unmapping
memory map
On 2 May 2018 at 08:17, Lee, Chun-Yi <joeyli.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> When using kdump, SOMETIMES the "size not consistent" warning message
> shows up when the crash kernel boots with early_ioremap_debug parameter:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at ../mm/early_ioremap.c:182 early_iounmap+0x4f/0x12c()
> early_iounmap(ffffffffff200180, 00000118) [0] size not consistent 00000120
>
> The root cause is that the unmapping size of memory map doesn't
> match with the original size when mapping:
>
> in __efi_memmap_init()
> map.map = early_memremap(phys_map, data->size);
>
> in efi_memmap_unmap()
> size = efi.memmap.desc_size * efi.memmap.nr_map;
> early_memunmap(efi.memmap.map, size);
>
> But the efi.memmap.nr_map is from __efi_memmap_init(). The remainder
> of size was discarded when calculating the nr_map:
> map.nr_map = data->size / data->desc_size;
>
> When the original size of memory map region does not equal to the
> result of multiplication. The "size not consistent" warning
> will be triggered.
>
> This issue sometimes was hit by kdump because kexec set the efi map
> size to align with 16 when loading crash kernel image:
>
> in bzImage64_load()
> efi_map_sz = efi_get_runtime_map_size();
> efi_map_sz = ALIGN(efi_map_sz, 16);
>
> Dave Young's a841aa83d patch fixed kexec issue. On UEFI side, this
> patch changes the logic in the unmapping function. Using the end
> address of map to calcuate original size.
>
Why do we still need this patch? I.e., in which circumstances will
efi_memory_map_data::size assume a value that is rounded up or
otherwise incorrect?
> Thank Randy Wright for his report and testing. And also thank
> Takashi Iwai for his help to trace issue.
>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
> Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
> Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Tested-by: Randy Wright <rwright@....com>
> Signed-off-by: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/efi/memmap.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/memmap.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/memmap.c
> index 5fc7052..1f592d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/memmap.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/memmap.c
> @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ void __init efi_memmap_unmap(void)
> if (!efi.memmap.late) {
> unsigned long size;
>
> - size = efi.memmap.desc_size * efi.memmap.nr_map;
> + size = efi.memmap.map_end - efi.memmap.map;
> early_memunmap(efi.memmap.map, size);
> } else {
> memunmap(efi.memmap.map);
> --
> 2.10.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists