[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] hvmloader: pass PCI MMIO layout to OVMF as an info table

On 11.01.2021 15:00, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
> On 11/01/2021 09:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 11.01.2021 05:53, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>>> --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/ovmf.c
>>> +++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/ovmf.c
>>> @@ -61,6 +61,14 @@ struct ovmf_info {
>>>      uint32_t e820_nr;
>>>  } __attribute__ ((packed));
>>> +#define OVMF_INFO_PCI_TABLE 0
>>> +struct ovmf_pci_info {
>>> +    uint64_t low_start;
>>> +    uint64_t low_end;
>>> +    uint64_t hi_start;
>>> +    uint64_t hi_end;
>>> +} __attribute__ ((packed));
>> Forming part of ABI, I believe this belongs in a public header,
>> which consumers could at least in principle use verbatim if
>> they wanted to.
> It probably does, but if we'd want to move all of hand-over structures
> wholesale that would include seabios as well. I'd stick with the current
> approach to avoid code churn in various repos. Besides the structures
> are not the only bits of ABI that are implicitly shared with BIOS images.

Well, so be it then for the time being. I'm going to be
hesitant though ack-ing such, no matter that there are (bad)
precedents. What I'd like to ask for as a minimum is to have
a comment here clarifying this struct can't be changed
arbitrarily because of being part of an ABI.

>>> @@ -74,9 +82,21 @@ static void ovmf_setup_bios_info(void)
>>>  static void ovmf_finish_bios_info(void)
>>>  {
>>>      struct ovmf_info *info = (void *)OVMF_INFO_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS;
>>> +    struct ovmf_pci_info *pci_info;
>>> +    uint64_t *tables = 
>>> scratch_alloc(sizeof(uint64_t)*OVMF_INFO_MAX_TABLES, 0);
>> I wasn't able to locate OVMF_INFO_MAX_TABLES in either
>> xen/include/public/ or tools/firmware/. Where does it get
>> defined?
> I expect it to be unlimited from OVMF side. It just expects an array of 
> tables_nr elements.

That wasn't the (primary) question. Me not being able to locate
the place where this constant gets #define-d means I wonder how
this code builds.

>> Also (nit) missing blanks around * .
>>>      uint32_t i;
>>>      uint8_t checksum;
>>> +    pci_info = scratch_alloc(sizeof(struct ovmf_pci_info), 0);
>> Is "scratch" correct here and above? I guess intended usage /
>> scope will want spelling out somewhere.
> Again, scratch_alloc is used universally for handing over info between 
> hvmloader
> and BIOS images. Where would you want it to be spelled out?

Next to where all the involved structures get declared.
Consumers need to be aware they may need to take precautions to
avoid clobbering the contents before consuming it. But as per
above there doesn't look to be such a central place (yet).

>>> +    pci_info->low_start = pci_mem_start;
>>> +    pci_info->low_end = pci_mem_end;
>>> +    pci_info->hi_start = pci_hi_mem_start;
>>> +    pci_info->hi_end = pci_hi_mem_end;
>>> +
>>> +    tables[OVMF_INFO_PCI_TABLE] = (uint32_t)pci_info;
>>> +    info->tables = (uint32_t)tables;
>>> +    info->tables_nr = 1;
>> In how far is this problem (and hence solution / workaround) OVMF
>> specific? IOW don't we need a more generic approach here?
> I believe it's very OVMF specific given only OVMF constructs identity page
> tables for the whole address space - that's how it was designed. Seabios to
> the best of my knowledge only has access to lower 4G.

Quite likely, yet how would SeaBIOS access such a huge frame
buffer then? They can't possibly place it below 4G. Do systems
with such video cards get penalized by e.g. not surfacing VESA
mode changing functionality?

In general I think any BIOS should be eligible to receive
information one BIOS finds necessary to receive. They're all
fine to ignore what they get handed. But yes, moving this a
layer up can certainly also be done later.




Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.