From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10B0D803DF for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 06:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B45A83F3E; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:13:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-116-194.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.194]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v2EDDHcA010426; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:13:17 -0400 To: "Zeng, Star" , "Fan, Jeff" , edk2-devel-01 References: <20170308195839.18689-1-lersek@redhat.com> <20170308195839.18689-3-lersek@redhat.com> <542CF652F8836A4AB8DBFAAD40ED192A4C55D701@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <542CF652F8836A4AB8DBFAAD40ED192A4C55F3F4@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <0C09AFA07DD0434D9E2A0C6AEB0483103B833AAB@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> Cc: "Tian, Feng" , Michael Tsirkin , Ard Biesheuvel , Phil Dennis-Jordan , Leo Duran , "Yao, Jiewen" , Al Stone From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <58d77a24-5548-2ba8-a1ca-30d37714d15d@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:13:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0C09AFA07DD0434D9E2A0C6AEB0483103B833AAB@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:13:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] MdeModulePkg/AcpiTableDxe: improve FADT.{DSDT, X_DSDT} mutual exclusion X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:13:20 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/14/17 09:33, Zeng, Star wrote: > In original code for < 4G table, > Dsdt and XDsdt will be both assigned if FADT is installed before DSDT, but > Dsdt and XDsdt will have mutual exclusion if FADT is installed after DSDT. > > They are inconsistent. That's right. The revert would not solve this original problem. > > Is there any negative impact found to assign both Dsdt and XDsdt for < 4G table except the spec volation? No, I don't think so; the spec violation is the only impact to my knowledge. Are you suggesting that we: - delete RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion(), - replace all invocations of RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion() with FALSE, - and then simplify the resultant code (that is, eliminate the always-FALSE branches, and un-indent the always-TRUE branches)? This would be [VARIANT A], regardless of ACPI spec version. I think that could work (as long as we don't mind breaking the ACPI spec versions that require mutual exclusion). Thanks Laszlo > > Thanks, > Star > -----Original Message----- > From: Fan, Jeff > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 3:57 PM > To: Laszlo Ersek ; edk2-devel-01 > Cc: Tian, Feng ; Michael Tsirkin ; Ard Biesheuvel ; Phil Dennis-Jordan ; Leo Duran ; Yao, Jiewen ; Al Stone ; Zeng, Star > Subject: RE: [edk2] [PATCH v2 2/2] MdeModulePkg/AcpiTableDxe: improve FADT.{DSDT, X_DSDT} mutual exclusion > > Laszlo, > > Basically, I agree with this is OS assumption. I did not find better fix to handle such compatibility issue. > > I agree to revert this patch 2/2 to fix Windows 2012 R2 boot issue. > > I don't know if the other guys have other suggestions. :-) > > Thanks! > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 10:44 PM > To: Fan, Jeff; edk2-devel-01 > Cc: Tian, Feng; Michael Tsirkin; Ard Biesheuvel; Phil Dennis-Jordan; Leo Duran; Yao, Jiewen; Al Stone; Zeng, Star > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH v2 2/2] MdeModulePkg/AcpiTableDxe: improve FADT.{DSDT, X_DSDT} mutual exclusion > > On 03/13/17 04:07, Fan, Jeff wrote: >> Laszlo, >> >> We found one Windows Server 2012 R2 blue screen issue with ACPI 6.1 FADT table. >> >> We did the following configuration test with DSDT under 4GB. >> .DSDT .X_DSDT Window Server 2012 R2 >> ---------- ------------ ------------------------------- >> set clear Failed // current implementation >> clear set Succeed >> set set Succeed > > That looks like a Windows bug. The above configuration satisfies ACPI 6.1: > > DSDT -- Physical memory address of the DSDT. If the X_DSDT field contains a non-zero value then this field must be zero. > > X_DSDT -- Extended physical address of the DSDT. If the DSDT field contains a non-zero value then this field must be zero. > > Michael told me that "6.1 errata will specify X_DSDT takes preference over DSDT but both can be present legaly", however, here X_DSDT cannot take precedence because it is zero. > > Based on past experience, I don't expect that Microsoft will ever fix this ACPI bug in Windows Server 2012 R2. I don't even expect that they would share with us a list of ACPI spec versions that should be exempted from RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion() -- despite the spec clearly requiring DSDT / X_DSDT exclusion --, for bug compatibility. > > That leaves us with trial and error, to see what works and what doesn't. > Unfortunately, I don't have ACPI tables for several ACPI spec versions; I don't think I can experiment with this. If you find a workaround, that would be great, but if we can't, I guess the patch should be reverted. > (Note however that the BSOD will remain possible to trigger, with the DSDT, FADT installation order.) > > Thanks > Laszlo > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of >> Laszlo Ersek >> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 3:59 AM >> To: edk2-devel-01 >> Cc: Tian, Feng; Michael Tsirkin; Ard Biesheuvel; Phil Dennis-Jordan; >> Leo Duran; Yao, Jiewen; Al Stone; Zeng, Star >> Subject: [edk2] [PATCH v2 2/2] MdeModulePkg/AcpiTableDxe: improve >> FADT.{DSDT, X_DSDT} mutual exclusion >> >> The ACPI specification, up to and including revision 5.1 Errata A, >> allows the DSDT and X_DSDT fields to be both set in the FADT. >> (Obviously, this only makes sense if the DSDT address is representable >> in 4 bytes.) >> >> Starting with 5.1 Errata B, specifically for Mantis 1393 , the spec requires at most one of DSDT and X_DSDT to be set to a nonzero value. >> >> MdeModulePkg/AcpiTableDxe handles this mutual exclusion somewhat inconsistently. >> >> - If the caller of EFI_ACPI_TABLE_PROTOCOL.InstallAcpiTable() installs the >> tables in "DSDT, FADT" order, then we enforce the exclusion between the >> DSDT and X_DSDT fields: >> >> DSDT under 4GB FADT.DSDT FADT.X_DSDT [VARIANT B] >> -------------- --------- ----------- >> yes set clear >> no clear set >> >> This behavior conforms to 5.1 Errata B. (And it's not required by >> earlier versions of the spec.) >> >> - If the caller passes in the tables in "FADT, DSDT" relative order, then >> we do not enforce the exclusion: >> >> DSDT under 4GB FADT.DSDT FADT.X_DSDT [VARIANT A] >> -------------- --------- ----------- >> yes set set >> no clear set >> >> This satisfies 5.1 Errata A and earlier, but breaks 5.1 Errata B and >> later. >> >> Unify the handling of both relative orders. In particular, check the major and minor version numbers in the FADT. If the FADT version is strictly before 5.1, then implement [VARIANT A]. If the FADT version is equal to or larger than 5.1, then implement [VARIANT B]. >> >> We make three observations: >> >> - We can't check the FADT table version precisely against "5.1 Errata B"; >> erratum levels are not captured in the table. We err in the safe >> direction, namely we enforce the exclusion for "5.1" and "5.1 Errata A". >> >> - The same applies to "6.0" versus "6.0 Errata A". Because we cannot >> distinguish these two, we consider "6.0" to be "equal to or larger than >> 5.1", and apply [VARIANT B], enforcing the exclusion. >> >> - While a blanket [VARIANT B] would be simpler, there is a significant >> benefit to [VARIANT A], under the spec versions that permit it: >> compatibility with a wider range of OSPMs (typically, older ones). >> >> For example, Igor reported about a "DELL R430 system with rev4 FADT >> where DSDT and X_DSDT are pointing to the same address". Michael also >> reported about several systems that exhibit the same. >> >> Regression tested with the following KVM guests (QEMU built at ata0def594286d, "Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/bonzini/tags/for-upstream' into staging", 2017-01-30): >> >> - OVMF: boot and S3 suspend/resume >> - Ia32, Q35, SMM >> - Fedlet 20141209 >> - Ia32X64, Q35, SMM >> - Fedora 22 >> - Windows 7 >> - Windows 8.1 >> - Windows 10 >> - Windows Server 2008 R2 >> - Windows Server 2012 R2 >> - Windows Server 2016 Tech Preview 4 >> - X64, I440FX, no SMM >> - Fedora 24 >> - RHEL-6.7 >> - RHEL-7.2-ish >> - ArmVirtQemu: boot test with virtio-gpu >> - AARCH64 >> - Fedora 24 >> - RHELSA-7.3 >> - openSUSE Tumbleweed (4.8.4-based) >> >> This change is connected to ASWG ticket >> , which is now closed/fixed. >> >> Cc: Al Stone >> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel >> Cc: Feng Tian >> Cc: Igor Mammedov >> Cc: Jiewen Yao >> Cc: Leo Duran >> Cc: Michael Tsirkin >> Cc: Phil Dennis-Jordan >> Cc: Star Zeng >> Reported-by: Phil Dennis-Jordan >> Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 >> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek >> Reviewed-by: Phil Dennis-Jordan >> --- >> >> Notes: >> v2: >> - simplify logic in RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion() [Jiewen] >> - pick up Phil's R-b nonetheless (the above change is a minimal >> reformulation of code, with no behavioral difference) >> - add reference to Mantis#1757 to the commit message >> >> v1: >> NOTE for people on the CC list: >> >> If you are not presently subscribed to edk2-devel and wish to comment on >> this patch publicly, you need to subscribe first, and wait for the >> subscription request to *complete* (see your inbox), *before* sending >> your followup. This is not ideal, but edk2-devel requires subscription >> before reflecting messages from someone. >> >> Subscribe at . Thanks. >> >> MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c | 62 >> +++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git >> a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c >> b/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c >> index 7795ff7269ca..4bb848df5203 100644 >> --- a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c >> +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c >> @@ -430,6 +430,51 @@ ReallocateAcpiTableBuffer ( >> mEfiAcpiMaxNumTables = NewMaxTableNumber; >> return EFI_SUCCESS; >> } >> + >> +/** >> + Determine whether the FADT table passed in as parameter requires >> +mutual >> + exclusion between the DSDT and X_DSDT fields. (That is, whether >> +there exists >> + an explicit requirement that at most one of those fields is >> +permitted to be >> + nonzero.) >> + >> + @param[in] Fadt The EFI_ACPI_3_0_FIXED_ACPI_DESCRIPTION_TABLE object to >> + check. >> + >> + @retval TRUE Fadt requires mutual exclusion between DSDT and X_DSDT. >> + @retval FALSE Otherwise. >> +**/ >> +BOOLEAN >> +RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion ( >> + IN EFI_ACPI_3_0_FIXED_ACPI_DESCRIPTION_TABLE *Fadt >> + ) >> +{ >> + // >> + // Mantis ticket #1393 was addressed in ACPI 5.1 Errata B. >> +Unfortunately, we >> + // can't tell apart 5.1 Errata A and 5.1 Errata B just from looking >> +at the >> + // FADT table. Therefore let's require exclusion for table versions >= 5.1. >> + // >> + // While this needlessly covers 5.1 and 5.1A too, it is safer to >> +require >> + // DSDT<->X_DSDT exclusion for lax (5.1, 5.1A) versions of the spec >> +than to >> + // permit DSDT<->X_DSDT duplication for strict (5.1B) versions of the spec. >> + // >> + // The same applies to 6.0 vs. 6.0A. While 6.0 does not require the >> + // exclusion, 6.0A and 6.1 do. Since we cannot distinguish 6.0 from >> +6.0A >> + // based on just the FADT, we lump 6.0 in with the rest of >= 5.1. >> + // >> + if ((Fadt->Header.Revision < 5) || >> + ((Fadt->Header.Revision == 5) && >> + (((EFI_ACPI_5_1_FIXED_ACPI_DESCRIPTION_TABLE *)Fadt)->MinorVersion == 0))) { >> + // >> + // version <= 5.0 >> + // >> + return FALSE; >> + } >> + // >> + // version >= 5.1 >> + // >> + return TRUE; >> +} >> + >> /** >> This function adds an ACPI table to the table list. It will detect FACS and >> allocate the correct type of memory and properly align the table. >> @@ -647,12 +692,16 @@ AddTableToList ( >> } >> if ((UINT64)(UINTN)AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3 < BASE_4GB) { >> AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt = (UINT32) (UINTN) AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3; >> - ZeroMem (&AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->XDsdt, sizeof (UINT64)); >> + if (RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion (AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3)) { >> + Buffer64 = 0; >> + } else { >> + Buffer64 = AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt; >> + } >> } else { >> AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt = 0; >> Buffer64 = (UINT64) (UINTN) AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3; >> - CopyMem (&AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->XDsdt, &Buffer64, sizeof (UINT64)); >> } >> + CopyMem (&AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->XDsdt, &Buffer64, sizeof >> + (UINT64)); >> >> // >> // RSDP OEM information is updated to match the FADT OEM information @@ -847,8 +896,15 @@ AddTableToList ( >> if (AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3 != NULL) { >> if ((UINT64)(UINTN)AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3 < BASE_4GB) { >> AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt = (UINT32) (UINTN) >> AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3; >> + if (RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion (AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3)) { >> + Buffer64 = 0; >> + } else { >> + Buffer64 = AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt; >> + } >> + } else { >> + AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt = 0; >> + Buffer64 = (UINT64) (UINTN) AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3; >> } >> - Buffer64 = (UINT64) (UINTN) AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3; >> CopyMem (&AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->XDsdt, &Buffer64, sizeof >> (UINT64)); >> >> // >> -- >> 2.9.3 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> edk2-devel mailing list >> edk2-devel@lists.01.org >> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel >> >