Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181129171230.18699-6-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 <tip-08cfb38f3ef49cfd1bba11a00401451606477d80@git.kernel.org>
 <FFF73D592F13FD46B8700F0A279B802F48604575@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <CAKv+Gu_vTHFxpKRu_CxKP-GdNdgdFKr7fi87VkNur0sqGQNVDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <FFF73D592F13FD46B8700F0A279B802F486045CA@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <CAKv+Gu9iJinkP-buhmzRyB91_HcJ-tDwT3YHeHGFo4Bsiv7O_Q@mail.gmail.com> <FFF73D592F13FD46B8700F0A279B802F486046A9@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <FFF73D592F13FD46B8700F0A279B802F486046A9@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 21 Dec 2018 18:02:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu99VdPero0yrXiaByURyp1idYE948Qi4j1eqY0ENCrF5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:efi/core] x86/efi: Unmap EFI boot services code/data regions
 from efi_pgd
To:     "Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "marc.zyngier@arm.com" <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        "eric.snowberg@oracle.com" <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>,
        "hdegoede@redhat.com" <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com" <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>,
        "julien.thierry@arm.com" <julien.thierry@arm.com>,
        "bhsharma@redhat.com" <bhsharma@redhat.com>,
        "jonathanh@nvidia.com" <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        "joe@perches.com" <joe@perches.com>,
        "matt@codeblueprint.co.uk" <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
        "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "natechancellor@gmail.com" <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        "luto@kernel.org" <luto@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "sedat.dilek@gmail.com" <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
        "zhuyifei1999@gmail.com" <zhuyifei1999@gmail.com>,
        "linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 20:48, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth
<sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hi Thomas and Ingo,
> > > > >
> > > > > I recently noticed that the below commits [1] and [2] are broken
> > > > > when kernel command line argument "efi=old_map" is passed. Sorry!
> > > > > I missed to test this condition prior to sending these patches to mailing list.
> > > > > I am working on a fix and will send it to mailing list as soon as it's ready.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Could you elaborate on the problem please?
> > >
> > > Sure! My bad..
> > >
> > > Little bit of history here:
> > > Boris with this patch set [1] introduced statically mapping EFI
> > > Runtime Services at -4G and also introduced "efi=old_map" to return to
> > > previous EFI functionality which used ioremap and __va(pa).
> > >
> > > [3] and [4] are links to old_map_region()
> > >
> > > The commit 08cfb38f3ef4 ("x86/efi: Unmap EFI boot services code/data
> > > regions from efi_pgd"), unmaps EFI boot services code/data regions
> > > *only* from efi_pgd but efi=old_map maps EFI boot services code/data
> > > regions into swapper_pgd. Also, efi=old_map  uses either
> > > ioremap() or __va(md->phys_addr) to map EFI runtime/boot time services and
> > doesn't use kernel_map_pages_in_pgd().
> > >
> > > So, we need a different unmapping routine to unmap EFI boot services
> > > code/data regions from swapper_pgd if they were mapped using efi=old_map.
> > >
> >
> > For the short term, could we simply make your changes dependent on efi !=
> > old_map? That gives us some time to fix the old_map case properly.
>
> Yes, I think we could and it should work but I hesitated to propose it because
> (as you already noted) it's a short term fix and not the right fix.
>

What is the status here?

> Alternatively, we could also evaluate if we need to support efi=old_map case going further.
> I thought dropping it would be a bad idea because it changes kernel user visible interface
> (because it's a kernel command line argument) and never brought it up.
> Not sure what Thomas, Ingo or Linus might think about dropping a kernel command line
> argument.
>

Dropping a command line argument is not a problem in itself, unless
anyone is actively using it :-)

As far as I can tell, the SGI x86 UV platforms still rely on this, so
we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future.

This means we need a fixes that makes your unmapping code conditional
on !old_memmap. Do you have an ETA for that?