From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751411Ab3HSVJm (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:09:42 -0400
Received: from g6t0187.atlanta.hp.com ([15.193.32.64]:43299 "EHLO
	g6t0187.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751258Ab3HSVJk (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:09:40 -0400
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:09:39 -0600
From: Linn Crosetto <linn@hp.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com>,
        linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] EFI boot stub memory map fix
Message-ID: <20130819210939.GJ14273@oranje.fc.hp.com>
References: <1376942419-5684-1-git-send-email-linn@hp.com>
 <e7fc4e2f-4cda-4eef-8d37-bb87773f58e8@email.android.com>
 <CAE9FiQWRp+AMeTnC3MPSWi4as6qaoFiZEsAfjr3+75YT9XMPcQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAE9FiQWRp+AMeTnC3MPSWi4as6qaoFiZEsAfjr3+75YT9XMPcQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 01:47:41PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:06 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> > I would strongly disagree that option 2 is the cleaner solution.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> >
> > Linn Crosetto <linn@hp.com> wrote:
> >>I realize the EFI stub for ARM patches are in flight,
> >>
> >>https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/9/554
> >>
> >>and overlap with some of the files but I wanted to send these out for
> >>comment.
> >>
> >>This series fixes a problem with EFI memory maps larger than 128
> >>entries when
> >>booting using the EFI boot stub, which results in overflowing the
> >>e820_map in
> >>boot_params and an eventual halt when checking the map size in
> >>sanitize_e820_map().
> >>
> >>The fix implemented is to add the EFI memory map from setup_arch() via
> >>a
> >>memory_setup hook.
> >>
> >>Two options were considered:
> >>
> >> 1. Use the SETUP_E820_EXT setup_data type to add the extra entries.
> >>
> >>2. Create a memory_setup function to be enabled when the EFI memory map
> >>is
> >>    needed.
> >>
> >>Option 2 appeared to be the cleaner solution, reducing duplication with
> >>existing code, given a reasonable mechanism for determining when to
> >>replace the default memory_setup function.
> 
> If boot_loader could create setup_data with SETUP_E820_EXT,
> efi_stub should go that path too.
> We should not add another path.

My consideration was in leveraging do_add_efi_memmap(), which duplicates what is
done with the map in exit_boot(), and can already be called via the
"add_efi_memmap" parameter. One complication with SETUP_E820_EXT is in
determining the size needed, since a call to allocate_pool will change the
memory map. 

I will send another version which uses SETUP_E820_EXT.

Thanks,
Linn