[PATCH] arm64: efi: make sure vmlinux load address aligned on 2MBytes

Mark Rutland mark.rutland at arm.com
Wed Oct 28 10:26:19 PDT 2015


On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:11:57PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 10/27/2015 09:06 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-stub.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-stub.c
> >index 816120ece6bc..a60ce249cfc0 100644
> >--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-stub.c
> >+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi-stub.c
> >@@ -42,7 +42,8 @@
> >                  * Mustang), we can still place the kernel at the address
> >                  * 'dram_base + TEXT_OFFSET'.
> >                  */
> >-               *image_addr = *reserve_addr = dram_base + TEXT_OFFSET;
> >+               *image_addr = *reserve_addr = round_up(dram_base, SZ_2M) +
> >+                                                      TEXT_OFFSET);
> >                 nr_pages = round_up(kernel_memsize, EFI_ALLOC_ALIGN) /
> >                            EFI_PAGE_SIZE;
> >                 status = efi_call_early(allocate_pages, EFI_ALLOCATE_ADDRESS,
> 
> Tested-by: Timur Tabi <timur at codeaurora.org>
> Tested-by: Shanker Donthineni <shankerd at codeaurora.org>

I assume with the trailing ')' removed. ;)

With that:

Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>

> However, I think this formatting is easier to read:
> 
> 		*image_addr = *reserve_addr =
> 			round_up(dram_base, SZ_2M) + TEXT_OFFSET;

I have no strong feeling on this either way.

> This does make the kernel boot, but we suspect that there may be
> another problem.  We need to investigate it, but we have a suspicion
> that the EFI stub is trying to allocate from the Runtime Data block,
> and the alignment adjustment "fixes" the problem by moving the
> pointer to Conventional Memory.

I don't follow. EFI_BOOT_SERVICES.AllocatePages() should only give us
pages which are available, so it shouldn't ever return pages which are
runtime data -- it would fail and we'd fall back to efi_low_alloc().

Could you elaborate?

> Anyway, is there any chance we can get this fix into 4.3?  I'd hate
> to have 4.3 released knowing that it's broken on our hardware.

It's probably too late now, but it should certainly be Cc'd stable and
get backported.

Thanks,
Mark.



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list