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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.10] libxc: load acpi RSDP table at correct address



On 20/11/17 15:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 20.11.17 at 15:14, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 20/11/17 14:56, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2017 06:50 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20.11.17 at 12:20, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Which restriction? I'm loading the RSDP table to its architectural
>>>>> correct addres if possible, otherwise it will be loaded to the same
>>>>> address as without my patch. So I'm not adding a restriction, but
>>>>> removing one.
>>>> What is "architecturally correct" in PVH can't be read out of
>>>> specs other than what we write down. When there's no BIOS,
>>>> placing anything right below the 1Mb boundary is at least
>>>> bogus.
>>>
>>> Unless it's a UEFI boot -- where else would you put it? Aren't these two
>>> (UEFI and non-UEFI) the only two options that the ACPI spec provides?
>>
>> I think Jan is right: for PVH its _our_ job to define the correct
>> placement. Which still can be the same as in the BIOS case, making
>> it easier to adapt any guest systems.
>>
>> So I'd say: The RSDP address in PVH case is passed in the PVH start
>> info block to the guest. In case there is no conflict with the
>> physical load address of the guest kernel the preferred address of
>> the RSDP is right below the 1MB boundary.
>>
>> Would this wording be okay?
> 
> To be honest (and in case it wasn't sufficiently clear form my
> earlier replies) - I'm pretty much opposed to this below-1Mb thing.
> There ought to be just plain RAM there for PVH.

So without my patch the RSDP table is loaded e.g. at about 6.5MB when
I'm using grub2 (the loaded grub image is about 5.5MB in size and it
is being loaded at 1MB).

When I'm using the PVH Linux kernel directly RSDP is just below 1MB
due to pure luck (the bzImage loader is still using the PV specific
ELF notes and this results in the loader believing RSDP is loadable
at this address, which is true, but the tests used to come to this
conclusion are just not applicable for PVH).

So in your opinion we should revoke the PVH support from Xen 4.10,
Linux and maybe BSD because RSDP is loaded in middle of RAM of the
guest? Doing it in a proper way you are outlining above would render
current PVH guests unusable.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

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