arm64: mvebu: fix crash in EFI memory allocation
Subsystems (3)
PATCH 1/1 arm64: mvebu: fix crash in EFI memory allocation
EFI memory allocation code return values that are not mapped by U-Boot MMU. This causes a crash when tftp calls efi_set_bootdev(). Fix this similarly to commit 0797f7f0b7e1 ("ARM: tegra: reserve unmapped RAM so EFI doesn't use it").
--- arch/arm/mach-mvebu/arm64-common.c | 13 ++----------- arch/arm/mach-mvebu/include/mach/cpu.h | 9 +++++++++ board/Marvell/mvebu_armada-8k/board.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
arch/arm/mach-mvebu/arm64-common.c +2 -11
@@ -17,19 +17,10 @@DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR ; -/* -* Not all memory is mapped in the MMU. So we need to restrict the -* memory size so that U-Boot does not try to access it. Also, the -* internal registers are located at 0xf000.0000 - 0xffff.ffff. -* Currently only 2GiB are mapped for system memory. This is what -* we pass to the U-Boot subsystem here. -*/ -#define USABLE_RAM_SIZE 0x80000000 -ulong board_get_usable_ram_top (ulong total_size) { -if (gd->ram_size >USABLE_RAM_SIZE ) -return USABLE_RAM_SIZE ; +if (gd->ram_size >MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ) +return MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ;return gd->ram_size; }
arch/arm/mach-mvebu/include/mach/cpu.h +9 -0
@@ -177,5 +177,14 @@ int mvebu_lcd_register_init(struct mvebu_lcd_info *lcd_info);*/ u32 get_ref_clk (void ); +/* +* Not all memory is mapped in the MMU. So we need to restrict the +* memory size so that U-Boot does not try to access it. Also, the +* internal registers are located at 0xf000.0000 - 0xffff.ffff. +* Currently only 2GiB are mapped for system memory. This is what +* we pass to the U-Boot subsystem in board_get_usable_ram_top(). +*/ +#define MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE 0x80000000 +#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */ #endif /* _MVEBU_CPU_H */
board/Marvell/mvebu_armada-8k/board.c +17 -0
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@#include <common.h> #include <dm.h> #include <i2c.h> +#include <efi_loader.h> #include <asm/io.h> #include <asm/arch/cpu.h> #include <asm/arch/soc.h>
@@ -154,6 +155,22 @@ int board_init(void)int board_late_init (void ) { +uint64_t unmapped_ram_start = gd->bd->bi_dram[0 ].start + +MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ; +uint64_t unmapped_ram_size = gd->bd->bi_dram[0 ].size + -MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ; + +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED (EFI_LOADER ) +if (gd->bd->bi_dram[0 ].size >MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ) +efi_add_memory_map (unmapped_ram_start, + unmapped_ram_size >>EFI_PAGE_SHIFT , +EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA , false); +if (gd->bd->bi_dram[1 ].start) +efi_add_memory_map (gd->bd->bi_dram[1 ].start, + gd->bd->bi_dram[1 ].size >>EFI_PAGE_SHIFT , +EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA , false); +#endif +/* Pre-configure the USB ports (overcurrent, VBus) */ board_xhci_config ();
Signature · 1 line
2.19.1
PATCH 1/1 arm64: mvebu: fix crash in EFI memory allocation
Quoted 10 lines
Am 22.11.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Baruch Siach <[email protected]>:
EFI memory allocation code return values that are not mapped by U-Boot MMU. This causes a crash when tftp calls
efi_set_bootdev(). Fix this similarly to commit0797f7f0b7e1("ARM: tegra: reserve unmapped RAM so EFI doesn't use it").Signed-off-by Baruch Siach <[email protected]>
Hm, how about we fox this up in the common memory registration function and add addresses > board_get_usable_ram_top() as boot time data?
As a side note, why do we not map everything in the first place? Is it just to prevent 32bit DMAs from failing?
Alex
Quoted 89 lines
---
arch/arm/mach-mvebu/arm64-common.c | 13 ++----------- arch/arm/mach-mvebu/include/mach/cpu.h | 9 +++++++++ board/Marvell/mvebu_armada-8k/board.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-mvebu/arm64-common.c +2
-11@@ -17,19 +17,10 @@DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR ; -/* -* Not all memory is mapped in the MMU. So we need to restrict the -* memory size so that U-Boot does not try to access it. Also, the -* internal registers are located at 0xf000.0000 - 0xffff.ffff. -* Currently only 2GiB are mapped for system memory. This is what -* we pass to the U-Boot subsystem here. -*/ -#define USABLE_RAM_SIZE 0x80000000 -ulong board_get_usable_ram_top (ulong total_size) { -if (gd->ram_size >USABLE_RAM_SIZE ) -return USABLE_RAM_SIZE ; +if (gd->ram_size >MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ) +return MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ;return gd->ram_size; }arch/arm/mach-mvebu/include/mach/cpu.h +9
-0@@ -177,5 +177,14 @@ int mvebu_lcd_register_init(struct mvebu_lcd_info *lcd_info);*/ u32 get_ref_clk (void ); +/* +* Not all memory is mapped in the MMU. So we need to restrict the +* memory size so that U-Boot does not try to access it. Also, the +* internal registers are located at 0xf000.0000 - 0xffff.ffff. +* Currently only 2GiB are mapped for system memory. This is what +* we pass to the U-Boot subsystem in board_get_usable_ram_top(). +*/ +#define MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE 0x80000000 +#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */ #endif /* _MVEBU_CPU_H */ board/Marvell/mvebu_armada-8k/board.c +17
-0@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@#include <common.h> #include <dm.h> #include <i2c.h> +#include <efi_loader.h> #include <asm/io.h> #include <asm/arch/cpu.h> #include <asm/arch/soc.h> @@ -154,6 +155,22 @@ int board_init(void)int board_late_init (void ) { +uint64_t unmapped_ram_start = gd->bd->bi_dram[0 ].start + +MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ; +uint64_t unmapped_ram_size = gd->bd->bi_dram[0 ].size + -MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ; + +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED (EFI_LOADER ) +if (gd->bd->bi_dram[0 ].size >MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ) +efi_add_memory_map (unmapped_ram_start, + unmapped_ram_size >>EFI_PAGE_SHIFT , +EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA , false); +if (gd->bd->bi_dram[1 ].start) +efi_add_memory_map (gd->bd->bi_dram[1 ].start, + gd->bd->bi_dram[1 ].size >>EFI_PAGE_SHIFT , +EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA , false); +#endif +/* Pre-configure the USB ports (overcurrent, VBus) */ board_xhci_config ();Signature · 1 line
2.19.1
PATCH 1/1 arm64: mvebu: fix crash in EFI memory allocation
Hi Alex,
Adding Stephen Warren to Cc.
Quoted 11 lines · Alexander Graf
Quoted 8 lines
Am 22.11.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Baruch Siach <[email protected]>:
EFI memory allocation code return values that are not mapped by U-Boot MMU. This causes a crash when tftp calls
efi_set_bootdev(). Fix this similarly to commit0797f7f0b7e1("ARM: tegra: reserve unmapped RAM so EFI doesn't use it").Signed-off-by Baruch Siach <[email protected]>Hm, how about we fox this up in the common memory registration function and add addresses >
board_get_usable_ram_top()as boot time data?
That would be much nicer indeed. Where should I look in lib/efi_loader/ to implement that?
With that in place we can revert commit 0797f7f0b7e1, right? Stephen, do you concur?
Quoted 2 lines
As a side note, why do we not map everything in the first place? Is it just to prevent 32bit DMAs from failing?
baruch
Quoted 85 lines
Quoted 85 lines
---
arch/arm/mach-mvebu/arm64-common.c | 13 ++----------- arch/arm/mach-mvebu/include/mach/cpu.h | 9 +++++++++ board/Marvell/mvebu_armada-8k/board.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)arch/arm/mach-mvebu/arm64-common.c +2
-11@@ -17,19 +17,10 @@DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR ; -/* -* Not all memory is mapped in the MMU. So we need to restrict the -* memory size so that U-Boot does not try to access it. Also, the -* internal registers are located at 0xf000.0000 - 0xffff.ffff. -* Currently only 2GiB are mapped for system memory. This is what -* we pass to the U-Boot subsystem here. -*/ -#define USABLE_RAM_SIZE 0x80000000 -ulong board_get_usable_ram_top (ulong total_size) { -if (gd->ram_size >USABLE_RAM_SIZE ) -return USABLE_RAM_SIZE ; +if (gd->ram_size >MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ) +return MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ;return gd->ram_size; }arch/arm/mach-mvebu/include/mach/cpu.h +9
-0@@ -177,5 +177,14 @@ int mvebu_lcd_register_init(struct mvebu_lcd_info *lcd_info);*/ u32 get_ref_clk (void ); +/* +* Not all memory is mapped in the MMU. So we need to restrict the +* memory size so that U-Boot does not try to access it. Also, the +* internal registers are located at 0xf000.0000 - 0xffff.ffff. +* Currently only 2GiB are mapped for system memory. This is what +* we pass to the U-Boot subsystem in board_get_usable_ram_top(). +*/ +#define MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE 0x80000000 +#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */ #endif /* _MVEBU_CPU_H */ board/Marvell/mvebu_armada-8k/board.c +17
-0@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@#include <common.h> #include <dm.h> #include <i2c.h> +#include <efi_loader.h> #include <asm/io.h> #include <asm/arch/cpu.h> #include <asm/arch/soc.h> @@ -154,6 +155,22 @@ int board_init(void)int board_late_init (void ) { +uint64_t unmapped_ram_start = gd->bd->bi_dram[0 ].start + +MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ; +uint64_t unmapped_ram_size = gd->bd->bi_dram[0 ].size + -MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ; + +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED (EFI_LOADER ) +if (gd->bd->bi_dram[0 ].size >MVEBU_ARM64_USABLE_RAM_SIZE ) +efi_add_memory_map (unmapped_ram_start, + unmapped_ram_size >>EFI_PAGE_SHIFT , +EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA , false); +if (gd->bd->bi_dram[1 ].start) +efi_add_memory_map (gd->bd->bi_dram[1 ].start, + gd->bd->bi_dram[1 ].size >>EFI_PAGE_SHIFT , +EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA , false); +#endif +/* Pre-configure the USB ports (overcurrent, VBus) */ board_xhci_config ();
Signature · 3 lines
http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
- baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -PATCH 1/1 arm64: mvebu: fix crash in EFI memory allocation
Quoted 14 lines · Baruch Siach
Hi Alex,
Adding Stephen Warren to Cc.
Quoted 9 lines · Alexander Graf
Quoted 8 lines
Am 22.11.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Baruch Siach <[email protected]>:
EFI memory allocation code return values that are not mapped by U-Boot MMU. This causes a crash when tftp calls
efi_set_bootdev(). Fix this similarly to commit0797f7f0b7e1("ARM: tegra: reserve unmapped RAM so EFI doesn't use it").Signed-off-by Baruch Siach <[email protected]>
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Hm, how about we fox this up in the common memory registration function and add addresses >
board_get_usable_ram_top()as boot time data?That would be much nicer indeed. Where should I look in
lib/efi_loader/to implement that?With that in place we can revert commit
0797f7f0b7e1, right? Stephen, do you concur?
I believe so, yes. I'm not sure why it's acceptable to fix the EFI allocator to solve this now, when it wasn't acceptable before though.
PATCH 1/1 arm64: mvebu: fix crash in EFI memory allocation
Hi Stephen,
Adding Heinrich Schuchardt.
Quoted 16 lines · Stephen Warren
Quoted 15 lines · Baruch Siach
Adding Stephen Warren to Cc.
Quoted 11 lines · Alexander Graf
Quoted 8 lines
Am 22.11.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Baruch Siach <[email protected]>:
EFI memory allocation code return values that are not mapped by U-Boot MMU. This causes a crash when tftp calls
efi_set_bootdev(). Fix this similarly to commit0797f7f0b7e1("ARM: tegra: reserve unmapped RAM so EFI doesn't use it").Signed-off-by Baruch Siach <[email protected]>Hm, how about we fox this up in the common memory registration function and add addresses >
board_get_usable_ram_top()as boot time data?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
That would be much nicer indeed. Where should I look in
lib/efi_loader/to implement that?With that in place we can revert commit
0797f7f0b7e1, right? Stephen, do you concur?I believe so, yes. I'm not sure why it's acceptable to fix the EFI allocator to solve this now, when it wasn't acceptable before though.
I read the previous discussion[1] from July/August. If I understand the conclusion correctly, efi_add_memory_map() provides information that is vital to the correctness of the EFI memory map, and is platform specific. Is that correct?
If so, then this patch (actually, its v2) is the correct solution for Armada 8K. A possible improvement to the EFI memory allocation code would be a warning instead of crash. Would that be acceptable?
Thanks,
baruch
[1] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2018-July/336726.html
--
http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
- baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -
PATCH 1/1 arm64: mvebu: fix crash in EFI memory allocation
Quoted 30 lines · Baruch Siach
Hi Stephen,
Adding Heinrich Schuchardt.
Quoted 16 lines · Stephen Warren
Quoted 15 lines · Baruch Siach
Adding Stephen Warren to Cc.
Quoted 11 lines · Alexander Graf
Quoted 8 lines
Am 22.11.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Baruch Siach <[email protected]>:
EFI memory allocation code return values that are not mapped by U-Boot MMU. This causes a crash when tftp calls
efi_set_bootdev(). Fix this similarly to commit0797f7f0b7e1("ARM: tegra: reserve unmapped RAM so EFI doesn't use it").Signed-off-by Baruch Siach <[email protected]>Hm, how about we fox this up in the common memory registration function and add addresses >
board_get_usable_ram_top()as boot time data?Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
That would be much nicer indeed. Where should I look in
lib/efi_loader/to implement that?With that in place we can revert commit
0797f7f0b7e1, right? Stephen, do you concur?I believe so, yes. I'm not sure why it's acceptable to fix the EFI allocator to solve this now, when it wasn't acceptable before though.
Quoted 8 lines
I read the previous discussion[1] from July/August. If I understand the conclusion correctly,
efi_add_memory_map()provides information that is vital to the correctness of the EFI memory map, and is platform specific. Is that correct?If so, then this patch (actually, its v2) is the correct solution for Armada 8K. A possible improvement to the EFI memory allocation code would be a warning instead of crash. Would that be acceptable?
So the problem is that the EFI memory map needs to describe all memory. We can't just leave out chunks because U-Boot doesn't map them, as then Linux wouldn't get to see them either.
What we can do however, is mark regions that should not be used during boot time as "allocated by firmware". That way the memory map still exposes the full map, but we make sure no payload makes use of high addresses when they're not mapped.
I honestly don't remember why exactly I didn't want to put in support for board_get_usable_ram_top() in the generic code. It's a reasonable interface to influence the allocation code. I must've thought it's nvidia specific, so a one-off and thus made more sense in their board file.
Let me quickly write up a patch of what I have in mind.
Alex