[PATCH v12 1/5] efi: ARM/arm64: ignore DT memory nodes instead of removing them
From: Ard Biesheuvel <hidden>
Date: 2016-02-23 12:20:14
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-efi, lkml
On 23 February 2016 at 13:16, Will Deacon [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:58:05AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:quoted
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 05:58:19PM -0800, David Daney wrote:quoted
From: Ard Biesheuvel <redacted> There are two problems with the UEFI stub DT memory node removal routine: - it deletes nodes as it traverses the tree, which happens to work but is not supported, as deletion invalidates the node iterator; - deleting memory nodes entirely may discard annotations in the form of additional properties on the nodes. Since the discovery of DT memory nodes occurs strictly before the UEFI init sequence, we can simply clear the memblock memory table before parsing the UEFI memory map. This way, it is no longer necessary to remove the nodes, so we can remove that logic from the stub as well.This is a little bit scary, but I guess this works. My only concern is that when we get kexec, a subsequent kernel must also have EFI memory map support, or things go bad for the next EFI-aware kernel after that (as things like the runtime services may have been corrupted by the kernel in the middle). It's difficult to fix the general case later. A different option would be to support status="disabled" for the memory nodes, and ignore these in early_init_dt_scan_memory. That way a kernel cannot use memory without first having parsed the EFI memory map, and we can still get NUMA info from the disabled nodes.So in that case, the middle, non-EFI kernel would fail to boot? Realistically, once you've kexec'd a non-EFI payload, I don't think you can rely on the EFI state remaining intact for future EFI applications. Is this really something we should be trying to police in the kernel?
Well, we could add entries to /reserved-memory in the stub for all the regions UEFI cares about, that would probably be sufficient to fix this case.