Re: [PATCH 2/5] efi/x86: Implement support for unaccepted memory

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 10:50:33AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:

...

quoted

+void mark_unaccepted(struct boot_params *params, u64 start, u64 num)
+{

Some of these interfaces like accept_memory() take a start/end physical
address.  Having this take a "num pages" is bound to cause confusion.
Could you make these all consistently take start/end physical addresses?

Okay.

quoted

+	u64 end = start + num * PAGE_SIZE;
+	unsigned int npages;

Could you comment those, please?

	/*
	 * The accepted memory bitmap only works at PMD_SIZE
	 * granularity.  If a request comes in to mark memory
	 * as unaccepted which is not PMD_SIZE-aligned, simply
	 * accept the memory now since it can not be *marked* as
	 * unaccepted.
	 */

Then go on to comment the three cases:

	/* Check for ranges which do not span a whole PMD_SIZE area: */

Okay.

quoted

+	if ((start & PMD_MASK) == (end & PMD_MASK)) {
+		npages = (end - start) / PAGE_SIZE;
+		__accept_memory(start, start + npages * PAGE_SIZE);
+		return;
+	}

Hmm, is it possible to have this case hit, but neither of the two below
cases?  This seems to be looking for a case where the range is somehow
entirely contained in one PMD_SIZE area, but where it doesn't consume a
whole area.

Wouldn't that mean that 'start' or 'end' must be unaligned?

The problem is that if both of them unaligned round_up() and round_down()
in the cases below would step outside the requested range.

quoted

+	if (start & ~PMD_MASK) {
+		npages = (round_up(start, PMD_SIZE) - start) / PAGE_SIZE;
+		__accept_memory(start, start + npages * PAGE_SIZE);
+		start = round_up(start, PMD_SIZE);
+	}
+
+	if (end & ~PMD_MASK) {
+		npages = (end - round_down(end, PMD_SIZE)) / PAGE_SIZE;
+		end = round_down(end, PMD_SIZE);
+		__accept_memory(end, end + npages * PAGE_SIZE);
+	}
+	npages = (end - start) / PMD_SIZE;
+	bitmap_set((unsigned long *)params->unaccepted_memory,
+		   start / PMD_SIZE, npages);
+}

Even though it's changed right there, it's a bit cruel to change the
units of 'npages' right in the middle of a function.  It's just asking
for bugs.

It would only take a single extra variable declaration to make this
unambiguous:

	u64 nr_unaccepted_bits;

or something, then you can do:

	nr_unaccepted_bits = (end - start) / PMD_SIZE;
	bitmap_set((unsigned long *)params->unaccepted_memory,
		   start / PMD_SIZE, nr_unaccepted_bits);

Okay.

...

quoted

 static efi_status_t allocate_e820(struct boot_params *params,
+				  struct efi_boot_memmap *map,
 				  struct setup_data **e820ext,
 				  u32 *e820ext_size)
 {
-	unsigned long map_size, desc_size, map_key;
 	efi_status_t status;
-	__u32 nr_desc, desc_version;
-
-	/* Only need the size of the mem map and size of each mem descriptor */
-	map_size = 0;
-	status = efi_bs_call(get_memory_map, &map_size, NULL, &map_key,
-			     &desc_size, &desc_version);
-	if (status != EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL)
-		return (status != EFI_SUCCESS) ? status : EFI_UNSUPPORTED;

I noticed that there's no reference to EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL in the hunks
you added back.  That makes me a bit nervous that this is going to
unintentionally change behavior.

It might be worth having a preparatory reorganization patch for
allocate_e820() before this new feature is added to make this more clear.

Okay. Will do.

quoted

+	__u32 nr_desc;
+	bool unaccepted_memory_present = false;
+	u64 max_addr = 0;
+	int i;
 
-	nr_desc = map_size / desc_size + EFI_MMAP_NR_SLACK_SLOTS;
+	status = efi_get_memory_map(map);
+	if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
+		return status;
 
-	if (nr_desc > ARRAY_SIZE(params->e820_table)) {
-		u32 nr_e820ext = nr_desc - ARRAY_SIZE(params->e820_table);
+	nr_desc = *map->map_size / *map->desc_size;
+	if (nr_desc > ARRAY_SIZE(params->e820_table) - EFI_MMAP_NR_SLACK_SLOTS) {
+		u32 nr_e820ext = nr_desc - ARRAY_SIZE(params->e820_table) -
+			EFI_MMAP_NR_SLACK_SLOTS;
 
 		status = alloc_e820ext(nr_e820ext, e820ext, e820ext_size);
 		if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
 			return status;
 	}
 
+	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY))
+		return EFI_SUCCESS;
+
+	/* Check if there's any unaccepted memory and find the max address */
+	for (i = 0; i < nr_desc; i++) {
+		efi_memory_desc_t *d;
+
+		d = efi_early_memdesc_ptr(*map->map, *map->desc_size, i);
+		if (d->type == EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY)
+			unaccepted_memory_present = true;
+		if (d->phys_addr + d->num_pages * PAGE_SIZE > max_addr)
+			max_addr = d->phys_addr + d->num_pages * PAGE_SIZE;
+	}

This 'max_addr' variable looks a bit funky.

It *seems* like it's related only to EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY, but it's not
underneath the EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY check.  Is this somehow assuming
that once unaccepted memory as been found that *all* memory found in
later descriptors at higher addresses is also going to be unaccepted?

You got it right below :P

quoted

+	/*
+	 * If unaccepted memory present allocate a bitmap to track what memory
+	 * has to be accepted before access.
+	 *
+	 * One bit in the bitmap represents 2MiB in the address space: one 4k
+	 * page is enough to track 64GiB or physical address space.
+	 *
+	 * In the worst case scenario -- a huge hole in the middle of the
+	 * address space -- we would need 256MiB to handle 4PiB of the address
+	 * space.
+	 *
+	 * TODO: handle situation if params->unaccepted_memory has already set.
+	 * It's required to deal with kexec.
+	 */
+	if (unaccepted_memory_present) {
+		unsigned long *unaccepted_memory = NULL;
+		u64 size = DIV_ROUND_UP(max_addr, PMD_SIZE * BITS_PER_BYTE);

Oh, so the bitmap has to be present for *all* memory, not just
unaccepted memory.  So, we really do need to know the 'max_addr' so that
we can allocate the bitmap for so that can be marked in the bitmap has
having been accepted.

Right we need a bit for every 2M. Accepted or not.

quoted

+		status = efi_allocate_pages(size,
+					    (unsigned long *)&unaccepted_memory,
+					    ULONG_MAX);
+		if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
+			return status;
+		memset(unaccepted_memory, 0, size);
+		params->unaccepted_memory = (u64)unaccepted_memory;
+	}

It might be nice to refer to setup_e820() here to mention that it is the
thing that actually fills out the bitmap.

Okay.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov