[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] CPU hotplug using SMM with QEMU
From: |
Igor Mammedov |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] CPU hotplug using SMM with QEMU+OVMF |
Date: |
Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:45:03 +0200 |
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:08:31 +0200
Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 09/04/19 11:52, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>
> > it could be stolen RAM + black hole like TSEG, assuming fw can live
> > without RAM(0x30000+128K) range
> > (in this case fwcfg interface would only work for locking down the range)
> >
> > or
> >
> > we can actually have a dedicated SMRAM (like in my earlier RFC),
> > in this case FW can use RAM(0x30000+128K) when SMRAM isn't mapped into RAM
> > address space
> > (in this case fwcfg would be used to temporarily map SMRAM into normal RAM
> > and unmap/lock
> > after SMI relocation handler was initialized).
> >
> > If possible I'd prefer a simpler TSEG like variant.
>
> I think TSEG-like behavior is between these two. That is, I believe we
> should have explicit open/close/lock operations. And, when the range is
> closed (meaning, closed+unlocked, or closed+locked), then the black hole
> should take effect for code that's not running in SMM.
>
> Put differently, its like the second choice, except the range never
> appears as normal RAM. "When SMRAM isn't mapped into RAM address space",
> then the address range shows "nothing" (black hole).
I guess we at point where patch is better then words, I'll send one as reply
here shortly.
I've just implemented subset of above (opened, closed+locked).
> Regarding "fw can live without RAM(0x30000+128K) range" -- do you mean
> whether the firmware could use another RAM area for fw_cfg DMA?
>
> If that's the question, then I wouldn't worry about it. I'd remove the
> 0x30000+128K range from the memory map, so the fw_cfg stuff (or anything
> else) would never allocate memory from the range. It's much more
> concerning to me however how the SMM infrastructure would deal with a
> hole in the memory map right there.
I didn't mean fwcfg in this context, what I meant if firmware were able
to avoid using RAM(0x30000+128K) range (since it becomes unusable after
locking).
Looks like you just answered it here
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] CPU hotplug using SMM with QEMU+OVMF, Igor Mammedov, 2019/09/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] CPU hotplug using SMM with QEMU+OVMF, Laszlo Ersek, 2019/09/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] CPU hotplug using SMM with QEMU+OVMF, Igor Mammedov, 2019/09/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] CPU hotplug using SMM with QEMU+OVMF, Laszlo Ersek, 2019/09/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] CPU hotplug using SMM with QEMU+OVMF, Igor Mammedov, 2019/09/04
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] CPU hotplug using SMM with QEMU+OVMF, Laszlo Ersek, 2019/09/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] CPU hotplug using SMM with QEMU+OVMF,
Igor Mammedov <=
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] q35: lpc: allow to lock down 128K RAM at default SMBASE address, Igor Mammedov, 2019/09/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] q35: lpc: allow to lock down 128K RAM at default SMBASE address, Laszlo Ersek, 2019/09/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] q35: lpc: allow to lock down 128K RAM at default SMBASE address, Laszlo Ersek, 2019/09/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] q35: lpc: allow to lock down 128K RAM at default SMBASE address, Igor Mammedov, 2019/09/10
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] q35: lpc: allow to lock down 128K RAM at default SMBASE address, Laszlo Ersek, 2019/09/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2-devel] [PATCH] q35: lpc: allow to lock down 128K RAM at default SMBASE address, Igor Mammedov, 2019/09/17