WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: force DMI table to not be in E820 RAM region

To: <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: force DMI table to not be in E820 RAM region
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:19:46 +0100
Delivery-date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:19:53 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In order for Dom0 to be able to map the DMI table, it must not be in
E820 RAM; since some BIOS versions apparently fail to set the type
correctly for the page(s) containing this table, adjust it before
starting to consume memory.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>

Index: 2007-08-08/xen/arch/x86/dmi_scan.c
===================================================================
--- 2007-08-08.orig/xen/arch/x86/dmi_scan.c     2007-08-06 15:08:40.000000000 
+0200
+++ 2007-08-08/xen/arch/x86/dmi_scan.c  2007-08-21 13:44:10.000000000 +0200
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ inline static int __init dmi_checksum(u8
        return (sum==0);
 }
 
-static int __init dmi_iterate(void (*decode)(struct dmi_header *))
+static int __init dmi_iterate(void (*decode)(struct dmi_header *), u32 *pbase)
 {
        u8 buf[15];
        char __iomem *p, *q;
@@ -121,6 +121,11 @@ static int __init dmi_iterate(void (*dec
                        u16 len=buf[7]<<8|buf[6];
                        u32 base=buf[11]<<24|buf[10]<<16|buf[9]<<8|buf[8];
 
+                       if (pbase)
+                               *pbase = base;
+                       if (!decode)
+                               return len;
+
                        /*
                         * DMI version 0.0 means that the real version is taken 
from
                         * the SMBIOS version, which we don't know at this 
point.
@@ -433,13 +438,27 @@ static void __init dmi_decode(struct dmi
 
 void __init dmi_scan_machine(void)
 {
-       int err = dmi_iterate(dmi_decode);
+       int err = dmi_iterate(dmi_decode, NULL);
        if(err == 0)
                dmi_check_system(dmi_blacklist);
        else
                printk(KERN_INFO "DMI not present.\n");
 }
 
+int __init dmi_get_table(u32*pbase, u32*plen)
+{
+       int rc = dmi_iterate(NULL, pbase);
+
+       if (rc < 0) {
+               *pbase = *plen = 0;
+               return rc;
+       }
+
+       *plen = rc;
+
+       return 0;
+}
+
 
 /**
  *     dmi_check_system - check system DMI data
Index: 2007-08-08/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
===================================================================
--- 2007-08-08.orig/xen/arch/x86/setup.c        2007-08-09 12:58:04.000000000 
+0200
+++ 2007-08-08/xen/arch/x86/setup.c     2007-08-21 13:48:30.000000000 +0200
@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
 #endif
 
 extern void dmi_scan_machine(void);
+extern int dmi_get_table(u32 *pbase, u32 *plen);
 extern void generic_apic_probe(void);
 extern void numa_initmem_init(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn);
 
@@ -425,6 +426,7 @@ void __init __start_xen(unsigned long mb
     module_t *mod = (module_t *)__va(mbi->mods_addr);
     unsigned long nr_pages, modules_length;
     int i, e820_warn = 0, bytes = 0;
+    u32 dmi_table_start, dmi_table_len;
     struct ns16550_defaults ns16550 = {
         .data_bits = 8,
         .parity    = 'n',
@@ -554,7 +556,7 @@ void __init __start_xen(unsigned long mb
     else if ( mbi->flags & MBI_MEMMAP )
     {
         memmap_type = "Multiboot-e820";
-        while ( bytes < mbi->mmap_length )
+        while ( bytes < mbi->mmap_length && e820_raw_nr < E820MAX )
         {
             memory_map_t *map = __va(mbi->mmap_addr + bytes);
 
@@ -605,6 +607,9 @@ void __init __start_xen(unsigned long mb
         EARLY_FAIL("Bootloader provided no memory information.\n");
     }
 
+    dmi_get_table(&dmi_table_start, &dmi_table_len);
+    e820_warn = 0;
+
     /* Ensure that all E820 RAM regions are page-aligned and -sized. */
     for ( i = 0; i < e820_raw_nr; i++ )
     {
@@ -615,6 +620,41 @@ void __init __start_xen(unsigned long mb
         s = PFN_UP(e820_raw[i].addr);
         e = PFN_DOWN(e820_raw[i].addr + e820_raw[i].size);
         e820_raw[i].size = 0; /* discarded later */
+
+        /*
+         * Dom0 will want to map the DMI table, yet some BIOSes put it
+         * in RAM regions - forcibly cut off the portion that overlaps.
+         */
+        if ( s < e &&
+             dmi_table_len > 0 &&
+             (e << PAGE_SHIFT) > dmi_table_start &&
+             (s << PAGE_SHIFT) < (u64)dmi_table_start + dmi_table_len )
+        {
+            u64 dmi_table_end = (u64)dmi_table_start + dmi_table_len;
+
+            if ( (s << PAGE_SHIFT) >= dmi_table_start &&
+                 (e << PAGE_SHIFT) <= dmi_table_end )
+                e = s;
+            else if ( (s << PAGE_SHIFT) >= dmi_table_start )
+                s = PFN_UP(dmi_table_end);
+            else if ( (e << PAGE_SHIFT) <= dmi_table_end )
+                e = PFN_DOWN(dmi_table_start);
+            else if ( e820_raw_nr < E820MAX )
+            {
+                e820_raw[e820_raw_nr].addr = dmi_table_end;
+                e820_raw[e820_raw_nr].size = (e << PAGE_SHIFT) - dmi_table_end;
+                e820_raw[e820_raw_nr].type = E820_RAM;
+                ++e820_raw_nr;
+                e = PFN_DOWN(dmi_table_start);
+            }
+            else if ( dmi_table_start - (s << PAGE_SHIFT) >=
+                      (e << PAGE_SHIFT) - dmi_table_end )
+                e = PFN_DOWN(dmi_table_start);
+            else
+                s = PFN_UP(dmi_table_end);
+            e820_warn = 1;
+        }
+
         if ( s < e )
         {
             e820_raw[i].addr = s << PAGE_SHIFT;
@@ -622,6 +662,19 @@ void __init __start_xen(unsigned long mb
         }
     }
 
+    if ( e820_warn )
+    {
+        printk("WARNING: DMI table located in E820 RAM "
+               "(fixed by shrinking/splitting RAM region).\n");
+        if ( e820_raw_nr < E820MAX )
+        {
+            e820_raw[e820_raw_nr].addr = dmi_table_start;
+            e820_raw[e820_raw_nr].size = dmi_table_len;
+            e820_raw[e820_raw_nr].type = E820_RESERVED;
+            ++e820_raw_nr;
+        }
+    }
+
     /* Sanitise the raw E820 map to produce a final clean version. */
     max_page = init_e820(memmap_type, e820_raw, &e820_raw_nr);
 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: force DMI table to not be in E820 RAM region, Jan Beulich <=