[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] libxl: put RSDP for PVH guest near 4GB
On 25/01/18 11:38, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > On 01/24/2018 01:06 PM, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 24/01/18 11:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:42:39AM +0000, George Dunlap wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:41 AM, Boris Ostrovsky >>>> <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 01/18/2018 05:33 AM, Wei Liu wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:31:32AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>>>>> Wei, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 01/12/17 15:14, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>>>>>> Instead of locating the RSDP table below 1MB put it just below 4GB >>>>>>>> like the rest of the ACPI tables in case of PVH guests. This will >>>>>>>> avoid punching more holes than necessary into the memory map. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>> Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> Mind applying this one? >>>>>> Don't worry, it is in my queue. >>>>>> >>>>>> Will come to this and other patches I accumulated soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wei. >>>>> >>>>> This requires kernel changes, doesn't it? >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-12/msg00714.html >>>>> >>>>> And this series apparently never made it to the tree. >>>>> >>>>> PVH guests are broken now on staging. >>>> >>>> And the Linux side of PVH is officially supported now, right? Which >>>> means we need to have some way of being backwards compatible with >>>> kernels without that patch, even if it does get backported. >>> >>> Linux had a bug that on PVH it expected to find the RSDP at the low >>> 1MiB. The PVHv2 boot protocol has _never_ mentioned that the RSDP >>> should be below 1MiB. There's just one comment in the start_info >>> header that says: >>> >>> "Xen on x86 will always try to place all the data below the 4GiB >>> boundary." >>> >>> And the RSDP address must be fetched from the rsdp_paddr field of the >>> start_info. >>> >>> I agree that the fact that Linux is broken is bad, but should not >>> force us to change the protocol. What's more, when booting a PVHv2 >>> Dom0 the RSDP _must_ not be searched in the low 1MiB, or else Dom0 is >>> going to find the firmware provided RSDP and everything is going to >>> blow up. >> >> Right. >> >> My patches to repair this in the Linux kernel are on hold as they are >> touching the boot parameters between grub2 and the kernel, too. And >> this caused the kernel no longer booting in some cases as most distros >> are shipping a grub2 breaking this interface via a non-upstream patch. > > Linking the related thread: > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg80003.html > > Out of interest, which "non-upstream patch" is this by the way? I didn't > see it mentioned yet. That patch is adding another Linux loader for EFI environment. > Is it defining an extra custom field in that stuct yolo style? Because > from my limited understanding that would of course also need the > counterpart being implemented at kernel side. > > Or (and I suspect it's this) is is not really using those bytes, but > leaving garbage behind, which forces you to implement the extra > validation checks? Right. And up to now this garbage hasn't been breaking anything (or nobody noticed it). Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |