From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.132.183.28; helo=mx1.redhat.com; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org 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 354D821B00DC1 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 06:08:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80023C056789; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:12:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-120-19.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.19]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A3C60F84; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:12:50 +0000 (UTC) To: Jian J Wang , edk2-devel@lists.01.org Cc: Jiewen Yao , Eric Dong References: <20171109013958.15832-1-jian.j.wang@intel.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <5d4b6d41-c348-9175-ac0a-5ddb0d58c565@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:12:49 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171109013958.15832-1-jian.j.wang@intel.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Thu, 09 Nov 2017 14:12:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] UefiCpuPkg/CpuDxe: Fix multiple entries of RT_CODE in memory map X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 14:08:51 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jian, this is v4, but the subject says v3 :) If you post a new version, please make sure that it says "v5" in the subject. The logic looks OK to me; I've got some comments on style: On 11/09/17 02:39, Jian J Wang wrote: >> v4: >> a. Remove DoUpdate and check attributes mismatch all the time to avoid >> a logic hole >> b. Add warning message if failed to update capability >> c. Add local variable to hold new attributes to make code cleaner > >> v3: >> a. Add comment to explain more on updating memory capabilities >> b. Fix logic hole in updating attributes >> c. Instead of checking illegal memory space address and size, use return >> status of gDS->SetMemorySpaceCapabilities() to skip memory block which >> cannot be updated with new capabilities. > >> v2 >> a. Fix an issue which will cause setting capability failure if size is smaller >> than a page. > > More than one entry of RT_CODE memory might cause boot problem for some > old OSs. This patch will fix this issue to keep OS compatibility as much > as possible. > > More detailed information, please refer to > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=753 > > Cc: Eric Dong > Cc: Jiewen Yao > Cc: Laszlo Ersek > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 > Signed-off-by: Jian J Wang > --- > UefiCpuPkg/CpuDxe/CpuPageTable.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/CpuDxe/CpuPageTable.c b/UefiCpuPkg/CpuDxe/CpuPageTable.c > index d312eb66f8..a1d804caed 100644 > --- a/UefiCpuPkg/CpuDxe/CpuPageTable.c > +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/CpuDxe/CpuPageTable.c > @@ -789,8 +789,7 @@ RefreshGcdMemoryAttributesFromPaging ( > UINT64 BaseAddress; > UINT64 PageStartAddress; > UINT64 Attributes; > - UINT64 Capabilities; > - BOOLEAN DoUpdate; > + UINT64 NewAttributes; > UINTN Index; > > // > @@ -802,9 +801,8 @@ RefreshGcdMemoryAttributesFromPaging ( > > GetCurrentPagingContext (&PagingContext); > > - DoUpdate = FALSE; > - Capabilities = 0; > Attributes = 0; > + NewAttributes = 0; > BaseAddress = 0; > PageLength = 0; > > @@ -813,6 +811,34 @@ RefreshGcdMemoryAttributesFromPaging ( > continue; > } > > + // > + // Sync the actual paging related capabilities back to GCD service first. > + // As a side effect (good one), this can also help to avoid unnecessary > + // memory map entries due to the different capabilities of the same type > + // memory, such as multiple RT_CODE and RT_DATA entries in memory map, > + // which could cause boot failure of some old Linux distro (before v4.3). > + // > + Status = gDS->SetMemorySpaceCapabilities ( > + MemorySpaceMap[Index].BaseAddress, > + MemorySpaceMap[Index].Length, > + MemorySpaceMap[Index].Capabilities | > + EFI_MEMORY_PAGETYPE_MASK > + ); > + if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) { > + // > + // If we cannot udpate the capabilities, we cannot update its > + // attributes either. So just simply skip current block of memory. > + // > + DEBUG (( > + DEBUG_WARN, > + "Failed to update capability: [%d] %016lx - %016lx (%016lx -> %016lx)\r\n", > + Index, BaseAddress, BaseAddress + Length - 1, (1) I think you forgot about my note that Index (which is of type UINTN) should not be printed with "%d". Instead, (UINT64)Index should be printed with "%lu". > + MemorySpaceMap[Index].Capabilities, > + MemorySpaceMap[Index].Capabilities | EFI_MEMORY_PAGETYPE_MASK > + )); > + continue; > + } > + > if (MemorySpaceMap[Index].BaseAddress >= (BaseAddress + PageLength)) { > // > // Current memory space starts at a new page. Resetting PageLength will > @@ -826,7 +852,9 @@ RefreshGcdMemoryAttributesFromPaging ( > PageLength -= (MemorySpaceMap[Index].BaseAddress - BaseAddress); > } > > - // Sync real page attributes to GCD > + // > + // Sync actual page attributes to GCD > + // > BaseAddress = MemorySpaceMap[Index].BaseAddress; > MemorySpaceLength = MemorySpaceMap[Index].Length; > while (MemorySpaceLength > 0) { > @@ -842,23 +870,26 @@ RefreshGcdMemoryAttributesFromPaging ( > PageStartAddress = (*PageEntry) & (UINT64)PageAttributeToMask(PageAttribute); > PageLength = PageAttributeToLength (PageAttribute) - (BaseAddress - PageStartAddress); > Attributes = GetAttributesFromPageEntry (PageEntry); > - > - if (Attributes != (MemorySpaceMap[Index].Attributes & EFI_MEMORY_PAGETYPE_MASK)) { > - DoUpdate = TRUE; > - Attributes |= (MemorySpaceMap[Index].Attributes & ~EFI_MEMORY_PAGETYPE_MASK); > - Capabilities = Attributes | MemorySpaceMap[Index].Capabilities; > - } else { > - DoUpdate = FALSE; > - } > } > > Length = MIN (PageLength, MemorySpaceLength); > - if (DoUpdate) { > - gDS->SetMemorySpaceCapabilities (BaseAddress, Length, Capabilities); > - gDS->SetMemorySpaceAttributes (BaseAddress, Length, Attributes); > - DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "Update memory space attribute: [%02d] %016lx - %016lx (%08lx -> %08lx)\r\n", > - Index, BaseAddress, BaseAddress + Length - 1, > - MemorySpaceMap[Index].Attributes, Attributes)); > + if (Attributes != (MemorySpaceMap[Index].Attributes > + & EFI_MEMORY_PAGETYPE_MASK)) { > + NewAttributes = (MemorySpaceMap[Index].Attributes > + & ~EFI_MEMORY_PAGETYPE_MASK) | Attributes; (2) To my understanding, the edk2 coding style wants us to keep the bitwise-and operator ("&") at the end of the line. > + Status = gDS->SetMemorySpaceAttributes ( > + BaseAddress, > + Length, > + NewAttributes > + ); > + ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > + DEBUG (( > + DEBUG_INFO, > + "Updated memory space attribute: [%d] %016lx - %016lx (%016lx -> %016lx)\r\n", > + Index, BaseAddress, BaseAddress + Length - 1, (3) Same comment as (1). Thanks, Laszlo > + MemorySpaceMap[Index].Attributes, > + NewAttributes > + )); > } > > PageLength -= Length; >