From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail05.groups.io (mail05.groups.io [45.79.224.7]) by spool.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A53489417C5 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 15:14:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=HK9qai6mEXdkNwQG0BpUUuI6WRBDa/Lb/SlUeX+WXoo=; c=relaxed/simple; d=groups.io; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Precedence:List-Subscribe:List-Help:Sender:List-Id:Mailing-List:Delivered-To:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Reply-To:List-Unsubscribe-Post:List-Unsubscribe:Content-Type:Content-Disposition; s=20240830; t=1725981275; v=1; x=1726240474; b=CHTlEIlEGxZr3kr6AOj1HwtEpQljwDsaRR+m81w19yjBntVRGpaJBfTnKhhJQFufLDMECp7M NfOdDguoDmVUIejZ89vVFhStgSOW2qA6d92RAHIIicFs4y3WUYmOuunCrT2mjculDB3GYx4vzZV k1sMtDyLo3REyovS8JGKhVlzAC9trSD2It/YeC+JZp1tFYMDR/VrQeIiajFy7kKbZIQD2waM5XG KD6wVuDRDqN0ui16EHi6/8IsxY3Olk2lrsjl6Ue8kMbG0+BWuenYKhyGWxvs+KPYGMRCgN24/c4 mMA0CRjsP9UwM4IHCK0VXMhMHw5SRxAtmfkm5ykkbqIBA== X-Received: by 127.0.0.2 with SMTP id GA4zYY7687511xQm7iOts9B0; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:14:34 -0700 X-Received: from mail-ej1-f54.google.com (mail-ej1-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.25961.1725981230143382246 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:13:50 -0700 X-Received: by mail-ej1-f54.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a8d4093722bso459438066b.0 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:13:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVV7U95Xe6nho9y1X1YuPjPNQ0mRYhLeVNvxfIFRTnEpauCXuYYBLsSzkVphqBgZkREEecsGA==@edk2.groups.io X-Gm-Message-State: c6iNKJiPGq3W6ZXvPrPdpyxNx7686176AA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGa324Mp4PeWqG8pH6t0Eo2JNJfFvVRTDFBDbp+jS0qdKR+yK3pu1oX1FOFMuTRkhs3lJJw7g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:6088:b0:a8d:1142:1d68 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a8ffaaa54c5mr136500066b.2.1725981227436; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:13:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: from gmail.com (fwdproxy-lla-112.fbsv.net. [2a03:2880:30ff:70::face:b00c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a640c23a62f3a-a8d25ceb1ffsm500604766b.146.2024.09.10.08.13.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:13:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:13:44 -0700 From: Breno Leitao To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: ardb@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, bhe@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, devel@edk2.groups.io, rppt@kernel.org, usamaarif642@gmail.com, gourry@gourry.net, rmikey@meta.com Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] EFI table being corrupted during Kexec Message-ID: <20240910-uppish-gopher-of-spirit-f14f0e@devvm32600> References: <20240910-juicy-festive-sambar-9ad23a@devvm32600> <87ed5rd1qf.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87ed5rd1qf.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: List-Help: Sender: devel@edk2.groups.io List-Id: Mailing-List: list devel@edk2.groups.io; contact devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:14:33 -0700 Resent-From: leitao@debian.org Reply-To: devel@edk2.groups.io,leitao@debian.org List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click List-Unsubscribe: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-GND-Status: LEGIT Authentication-Results: spool.mail.gandi.net; dkim=pass header.d=groups.io header.s=20240830 header.b=CHTlEIlE; dmarc=none; spf=pass (spool.mail.gandi.net: domain of bounce@groups.io designates 45.79.224.7 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bounce@groups.io Hello Eric, On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 09:26:00AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > I am wondering if that memory region/range should be part of e820 table that is > > passed by EFI firmware to kernel, and if it is not passed (as it is not being > > passed today), then the kernel doesn't need to respect it, and it is free to > > overwrite (as it does today). In other words, this is a firmware bug and not a > > kernel bug. > > > > Am I missing something? > > I agree that this appears to be a firmware bug. This memory is reserved > in one location and not in another location. That was is our current understanding also, but, having the same issue in EDK2 and on a real machine firmware was surprising. Anyway, I've CCed the EDK2 mailing list in this thread as well, let's see if someone has any comment. > As I recall the memblock allocator is the bootstrap memory allocator > used when bringing up the kernel. So I don't see reserving something > in the memblock allocator as being authoritative as to how the firmware > has setup memory. > > I would suggest writing a patch to update whatever is calling > memblock_reserve to also, or perhaps in preference to update the e820 > map. If the code is not x86 specific I would suggest using ACPI's > arch_reserve_mem_area call. Should all memblock_reserve() memory ranges be mapped to e820 table, or, just specific cases where we see problems? Thanks -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#120542): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/120542 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/108376671/7686176 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-