Re: [RFC] efi/tpm: add efi.tpm_log as a reserved region in 820_table_firmware

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Thu, 12 Sept 2024 at 15:55, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/09/2024 14:10, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Does the below help at all?
> >
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c
> > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ int __init efi_tpm_eventlog_init(void)
> >         }
> >
> >         tbl_size = sizeof(*log_tbl) + log_tbl->size;
> > -       memblock_reserve(efi.tpm_log, tbl_size);
> > +       efi_mem_reserve(efi.tpm_log, tbl_size);
> >
> >         if (efi.tpm_final_log == EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR) {
> >                 pr_info("TPM Final Events table not present\n");
>
> Unfortunately not. efi_mem_reserve updates e820_table, while kexec looks at /sys/firmware/memmap
> which is e820_table_firmware.
>
> arch_update_firmware_area introduced in the RFC patch does the same thing as efi_mem_reserve does at
> its end, just with e820_table_firmware instead of e820_table.
> i.e. efi_mem_reserve does:
>         e820__range_update(addr, size, E820_TYPE_RAM, E820_TYPE_RESERVED);
>         e820__update_table(e820_table);
>
> while arch_update_firmware_area does:
>         e820__range_update_firmware(addr, size, E820_TYPE_RAM, E820_TYPE_RESERVED);
>         e820__update_table(e820_table_firmware);
>

Shame.

Using efi_mem_reserve() is appropriate here in any case, but I guess
kexec on x86 needs to be fixed to juggle the EFI memory map, memblock
table, and 3 (!) versions of the E820 table in the correct way
(e820_table, e820_table_kexec and e820_table_firmware)

Perhaps we can put this additional logic in x86's implementation of
efi_arch_mem_reserve()? AFAICT, all callers of efi_mem_reserve() deal
with configuration tables produced by the firmware that may not be
reserved correctly if kexec looks at e820_table_firmware[] only.