Re: [PATCH 2/3] Update uv_bios_call to use efi_call_virt_generic
From: Matt Fleming
Date: Thu Jun 02 2016 - 15:46:00 EST
On Wed, 18 May, at 02:11:40PM, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> Now that the efi_call_virt macro has been generalized to be able to
> use EFI system tables besides efi.systab, we are able to convert our
> uv_bios_call wrapper to use this standard EFI callback mechanism.
> This simple change is part of a much larger effort to recover from some
> issues with the way we were mapping in some of our MMRs, and the way
> that we were doing our BIOS callbacks, which were uncovered by commit
> 67a9108ed431 ("x86/efi: Build our own page table structures").
> The first issue that this uncovered was that we were relying on the EFI
> memory mapping mechanism to map in our MMR space for us, which, while
> reliable, was technically a bug, as it relied on "undefined" behavior in
> the mapping code.
> The reason we were able to piggyback on the EFI memory mapping code to
> map in our MMRs was because, previously, EFI code used the
> trampoline_pgd, which shares a few entries with the main kernel pgd. It
> just so happened, that the memory range containing our MMRs was inside
> one of those shared regions, which kept our code working without issue
> for quite a while.
> Anyways, once we discovered this problem, we brought back our original
> code to map in the MMRs with commit 08914f436bdd ("x86/platform/UV:
> Bring back the call to map_low_mmrs in uv_system_init"). This got our
> systems a little further along, but we were still running into trouble
> with our EFI callbacks, which prevented us from booting all the way up.
> Our first step towards fixing the BIOS callbacks was to get our
> uv_bios_call wrapper updated to use efi_call_virt instead of the plain
> efi_call. The previous patch took care of the effort needed to make
> that possible. Along the way, we hit a major issue with some confusion
> about how to properly pull arguments higher than number 6 off the stack
> in the efi_call code, which resulted in Linus's commit 683ad8092cd2
> ("x86/efi: Fix 7-parameter efi_call()s").
> Now that all of those issues are out of the way, we're able to make this
> simple change to use the new efi_call_virt_generic in uv_bios_call which
> gets our machines booting, running properly, and able to execute our
> callbacks with 6+ arguments.
> Signed-off-by: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Russ Anderson <rja@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: linux-efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> arch/x86/platform/uv/bios_uv.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/uv/bios_uv.c b/arch/x86/platform/uv/bios_uv.c
> index 815fec6..0ae0826 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/platform/uv/bios_uv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/uv/bios_uv.c
> @@ -40,8 +40,7 @@ s64 uv_bios_call(enum uv_bios_cmd which, u64 a1, u64 a2, u64 a3, u64 a4, u64 a5)
> return BIOS_STATUS_UNIMPLEMENTED;
> - ret = efi_call((void *)__va(tab->function), (u64)which,
> - a1, a2, a3, a4, a5);
> + ret = efi_call_virt_generic(tab, function, (u64)which, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5);
> return ret;
Unless I've missed it, I didn't see an explanation in the changelog of
why it's OK to switch from using __va(tab->function) to tab->function
directly, which presumably is a physical address.
Was that intended?