Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/4] ACPI: Add APEI GHES Table Generation support

[gengdongjiu]

Laszlo,
  thanks for your clear and detailed answer. I completely understand
what you mean.

2017-07-07 17:43 GMT+08:00, Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden>:
> On 07/07/17 10:32, gengdongjiu wrote:
>> Hi Laszlo,
>>    sorry for my late response.
>>
>> On 2017/6/3 20:01, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 05/22/17 16:23, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>> Keeping some context:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/12/17 23:00, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>>> On 04/30/17 07:35, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
>>>
>>>> (68) In the code below, you are not taking an "OVMF header probe
>>>> suppressor" into account.
>>>>
>>>> But, we have already planned to replace that quirk with a separate,
>>>> dedicated allocation hint or command, so I'm not going to describe what
>>>> an "OVMF header probe suppressor" is; instead, I'll describe the
>>>> replacement for it.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> So, the NOACPI allocation hint is a no-go at the moment, based on the
>>> discussion in the following threads:
>>>
>>> http://mid.mail-archive.com/address@hidden
>>>
>>> http://mid.mail-archive.com/address@hidden
>>>
>>> Therefore the header probe suppression remains necessary.
>>>
>>> In this case, it is not hard to do, you just have to reorder the
>>> following two ADD_POINTER additions a bit:
>>  Ok, it is no problem.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +        bios_linker_loader_add_pointer(linker,
>>>>>> GHES_ERRORS_FW_CFG_FILE,
>>>>>> +                                sizeof(uint64_t) * i,
>>>>>> sizeof(uint64_t),
>>>>>> +                                GHES_ERRORS_FW_CFG_FILE,
>>>>>> +                                MAX_ERROR_SOURCE_COUNT_V6 *
>>>>>> sizeof(uint64_t) +
>>>>>> +                                i * MAX_RAW_DATA_LENGTH);
>>>
>>> This one should be moved out to a separate loop, after the current loop.
>>>
>>>>>> +        bios_linker_loader_add_pointer(linker,
>>>>>> ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_FILE,
>>>>>> +                    address_registers_offset
>>>>>> +                    + i * sizeof(AcpiGenericHardwareErrorSource),
>>>>>> +                    sizeof(uint32_t), GHES_ERRORS_FW_CFG_FILE,
>>>>>> +                    i * sizeof(uint64_t));
>>>
>>> This one should be kept in the first (i.e., current) loop.
>>>
>>> The idea is, when you first point the HEST/GHES_n entries in
>>> ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_FILE to the "address registers" in
>>> GHES_ERRORS_FW_CFG_FILE, all those address registers will still be
>>> zero-filled. This will fail the ACPI table header probe in
>>> OvmfPkg/AcpiPlatformDxe, which is what we want.
>>>
>>> After this is done, the address registers in GHES_ERRORS_FW_CFG_FILE
>>> should be pointed to the error status data blocks in the same fw_cfg
>>> blob, in a separate loop. (Those error status data blocks will again be
>>> zero-filled, so no ACPI table headers will be mistakenly recognized in
>>> them.)
>> I understand your idear. but I have a question:
>> how about we exchange the two function's place, such as shown below:
>> then it still meets ours needs, the change is easy.
>> For every loop:
>> (1)when patch address in ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_FILE to the "address registers",
>> the address register is zero-filed.
>> (2)when patch address in GHES_ERRORS_FW_CFG_FILE to the error status data
>> blocks, the error status data block is still zero-filed.
>>
>>     for (i = 0; i < GHES_ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_RESERVED; i++) {
>>         .....................................
>>         bios_linker_loader_add_pointer(linker, ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_FILE,
>>                     address_registers_offset
>>                     + i * sizeof(AcpiGenericHardwareErrorSource),
>>                     sizeof(uint32_t), GHES_ERRORS_FW_CFG_FILE,
>>                     i * sizeof(uint64_t));
>>
>>
>>         bios_linker_loader_add_pointer(linker, GHES_ERRORS_FW_CFG_FILE,
>>                                 sizeof(uint64_t) * i, sizeof(uint64_t),
>>                                 GHES_ERRORS_FW_CFG_FILE,
>>                                 MAX_ERROR_SOURCE_COUNT_V6 *
>> sizeof(uint64_t) +
>>                                 i * MAX_RAW_DATA_LENGTH);
>>      .........................................
>>
>>      }
>
> Your suggestion seems to do the same, but there is a subtle difference.
>
> When the firmware scans the targets of the ADD_POINTER commands for byte
> sequences that "look like" an ACPI table header, in order to suppress
> that probe, we should keep 36 bytes (i.e., the size of the ACPI table
> header structure) zeroed at the target location.
>
> * In the patch, as posted, this was not the case, because it first
> filled in the address register inside the GHES_ERRORS_FW_CFG_FILE blob,
> and then pointed a GHES pointer field in the HEST table to the *now*
> nonzero address register.
>
> * My suggestion was to first fill in all the GHES pointers (when still
> all the pointed-to address registers are zero), and then the address
> registers themselves should be patched.
>
> Under this scheme, it is irrelevant whether both loops are incrementing
> or decrementing loops.
>
> * Your suggestion would preserve the safe patching order between any
> given GHES field and its corresponding (pointed-to) address register. So
> that's great.
>
> However, consider the following case:
>
> - Assume that the loop is decrementing, and not incrementing.
>
> - First, the last GHES pointer field, GHES[9].<whatever> is patched. It
> is pointed to the last address register in "etc/hardware_errors", which
> is still zero-filled. Also, the last address register in
> "etc/hardware_errors" is immediately followed by the first Error Status
> Data Block, which is also filled with zero. This means that when the
> header probe will look at the *target* of GHES[9].<whatever>, it will
> definitely fail (which is what we want), because all consecutive 36
> bytes that start at the last address register in "etc/hardware_errors"
> are zero.
>
> - Second, the last address register, address[9], is patched. It is
> pointed to the last Error Status Data Block, which is zero filled, so
> the header probe in the firmware fails -- great.
>
> - Third, GHES[8].<whatever> is patched. It is set to &address[8].
> However, at this point, the 36 consecutive bytes starting at &address[8]
> are *not* all zero, because at relative offset 8, we have the already
> patched address[9] register, which is nonzero. I'm not saying that this
> would necessarily cause a problem, but we'd better be safe than sorry.

yes, it it. when the loop is  decrementing, my suggested method will
have problem.


>
>
> In other words, your suggestion is OK, because the loop we have is
> incrementing, not decrementing. But, if you decide to go with your idea,
> please add a comment before the "for" instruction, "this loop must
> remain an incrementing loop, to safely suppress the ACPI SDT header
> probe in the firmware".
Laszlo, I will use your method that separated them into different loop
to avoid the potential problem, thanks.


>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
>