|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH 1/2] xen/efi: Restrict check for DT boot modules on EFI boot
> On 16 Sep 2021, at 01:16, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Adding Jan for an opinion on the EFI common code changes. See below.
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> When Xen is started as EFI application, it is checking
>> the presence of multiboot,module in the DT, if any is
>> found, the configuration file is skipped.
>> Restrict this check to just any multiboot,module that
>> is a direct child of the /chosen node.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> xen/arch/arm/efi/efi-boot.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/efi/efi-boot.h b/xen/arch/arm/efi/efi-boot.h
>> index cf9c37153f..5ff626c6a0 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/efi/efi-boot.h
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/efi/efi-boot.h
>> @@ -581,6 +581,8 @@ static void __init
>> efi_arch_load_addr_check(EFI_LOADED_IMAGE *loaded_image)
>>
>> static bool __init efi_arch_use_config_file(EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE *SystemTable)
>> {
>> + int node;
>> + bool dom0_module_found = false;
>> /*
>> * For arm, we may get a device tree from GRUB (or other bootloader)
>> * that contains modules that have already been loaded into memory. In
>> @@ -592,11 +594,35 @@ static bool __init
>> efi_arch_use_config_file(EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE *SystemTable)
>> fdt = lookup_fdt_config_table(SystemTable);
>> dtbfile.ptr = fdt;
>> dtbfile.need_to_free = false; /* Config table memory can't be freed. */
>> - if ( !fdt || fdt_node_offset_by_compatible(fdt, 0, "multiboot,module")
>> < 0 )
>> +
>> + /* Locate chosen node */
>> + node = fdt_subnode_offset(fdt, 0, "chosen");
>> +
>> + /* Cycle through every node inside chosen having multiboot,module */
>> + do {
>> + int depth = 0;
>> + node = fdt_node_offset_by_compatible(fdt, node, "multiboot,module");
>> + /*
>> + * If the multiboot,module just found is placed at depth less than
>> 3,
>> + * it means that it is here: /chosen/<module> so it is a module to
>> + * start dom0. (root is counted as 0)
>> + */
>> + if ( node > 0 )
>> + {
>> + depth = fdt_node_depth(fdt, node);
>> + if ( (depth >= 0) && (depth < 3) )
>> + {
>> + dom0_module_found = true;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + } while(node > 0);
>
> It should be possible to enable the uefi,binary bootflow for Dom0 and
> the Dom0 ramdisk too. It would be nice as we could have a 100% UEFI
> boot, not dependent on U-Boot, both Dom0 and Dom0less, without the
> xen.cfg file. It doesn't have to be done now by this series, but it
> should be possible from a device tree bindings perspective.
>
> With that in mind, is this check accurate? This patch is saying that if
> Dom0 is not present in the device tree, then load xen.cfg. But what if
> it is a true dom0less configuration? Then we would have no dom0, only
> dom0less VMs, and we might still not want to load xen.cfg. True dom0less
> is another one of those configurations that don't have to be enabled now
> by this series but they should be possible from a device tree bindings
> perspective.
>
>
> I tried to think of ways to improve this check, for instance searching
> for a module that doesn't have "uefi,binary" but has the regular "reg"
> property. If there is one, then we could skip loading xen.cfg. But that
> doesn't work if we have a UEFI-only true dom0less configuration.
>
> So I am thinking that we have no choice but introducing a new property
> to tell us whether we should or should not load xen.cfg when
> multiboot,modules are present.
>
> Taking inspiration from HyperLaunch, it could be a new node:
>
> chosen {
> cfg {
> compatible = "xen,uefi-config", "multiboot,module";
> uefi,binary = "xen.cfg";
> };
> };
>
> In efi_arch_use_config_file we would check if there are any nodes
> compatible with "multiboot,module". If there are none, it returns true.
>
> If there are any, and one of them is also compatible "xen,uefi-config",
> then efi_arch_use_config_file returns true and also the specified
> configuration filename.
>
> If there are nodes compatible to "multiboot,module" but none of them is
> compatible to "module,uefi-config", then efi_arch_use_config_file
> returns false. We use the device tree only.
>
> I think that would be clearer and more consistent from a specification
> perspective, but it requires one change in common code:
> efi_arch_use_config_file would not just return bool but it would also
> return a filename if found (it could be a pointer parameter to the
> function).
>
>
> Otherwise, we could add a simple property like the following, without a
> specific value and without a filename:
>
> chosen {
> xen,uefi-config;
> };
>
> The presence of xen,uefi-config could mean that Xen should go through
> the usual guessing game to figure out the right cfg file to load. This
> would not require any common code changes because
> efi_arch_use_config_file could simply return bool as it does today.
>
> My preference is the xen,uefi-config compatible node, but I think the
> property would also work.
>
>
> Jan, do you have an opinion on whether efi_arch_use_config_file has to
> stay as it is today, or would you be open to the possibility of making
> efi_arch_use_config_file return a filename too?
Hi Stefano,
True dom0less is a configuration that this serie enables: if there is no dom0
kernel
specified in the xen.cfg then only the domUs will be loaded and started.
The following cases are valid:
1) start only dom0 [dom0 modules in xen.cfg or embedded in Xen image]
2) start only domUs, true dom0less [no dom0 modules in xen.cfg and inside Xen
image, domUs on DT]
3) start dom0 and domUs [(dom0 modules in xen.cfg or inside Xen image) and
domUs on DT]
I don’t understand why we want to add new properties to avoid/not avoid to read
the xen.cfg, am I missing
something?
Cheers,
Luca
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |