[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF
From: |
David Gibson |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:07:15 +1100 |
On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 03:07:41PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
>
> On 07/01/2020 16:26, David Gibson wrote:
>
> >>>>>> +static uint32_t client_setprop(SpaprMachineState *sm,
> >>>>>> + uint32_t nodeph, uint32_t pname,
> >>>>>> + uint32_t valaddr, uint32_t vallen)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + char propname[64];
> >>>>>> + uint32_t ret = -1;
> >>>>>> + int proplen = 0;
> >>>>>> + const void *prop;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + readstr(pname, propname);
> >>>>>> + if (vallen == sizeof(uint32_t) &&
> >>>>>> + ((strncmp(propname, "linux,rtas-base", 15) == 0) ||
> >>>>>> + (strncmp(propname, "linux,rtas-entry", 16) == 0))) {
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + sm->rtas_base = readuint32(valaddr);
> >>>>>> + prop = fdt_getprop_namelen(sm->fdt_blob,
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> fdt_node_offset_by_phandle(sm->fdt_blob,
> >>>>>> + nodeph),
> >>>>>> + propname, strlen(propname),
> >>>>>> &proplen);
> >>>>>> + if (proplen == vallen) {
> >>>>>> + *(uint32_t *) prop = cpu_to_be32(sm->rtas_base);
> >>>>>> + ret = proplen;
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is there a particular reason to restrict this to the rtas properties,
> >>>>> rather than just allowing the guest to fdt_setprop() something
> >>>>> arbitrary?
> >>>>
> >>>> The FDT is flatten and I am not quite sure if libfdt can handle updating
> >>>> properties if the length has changed.
> >>>
> >>> fdt_setprop() will handle updating properties with changed length (in
> >>> fact there's a special fdt_setprop_inplace() optimized for the case
> >>> where you don't need that). It's not particularly efficient, but it
> >>> should work fine for the cases we have here. In fact, I think you're
> >>> already relying on this for the code that adds the phandles to
> >>> everything.
> >>
> >> Well, I used to add phandles before calling fdt_pack() so it is not
> >> exactly the same.
> >
> > Ah, right, that's why adding the phandles worked.
> >
> >>> One complication is that it can return FDT_ERR_NOSPACE if there isn't
> >>> enough buffer for the increased thing. We could either trap that,
> >>> resize and retry, or we could leave a bunch of extra space. The
> >>> latter would be basically equivalent to not doing fdt_pack() on the
> >>> blob in the nobios case.
> >>
> >>
> >> This is what I ended up doing.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Also, more importantly, potentially property changes like this may have
> >>>> to be reflected in the QEMU device tree so I allowed only the properties
> >>>> which I know how to deal with.
> >>>
> >>> That's a reasonable concern, but the nice thing about not having SLOF
> >>> is that there's only one copy of the device tree - the blob in qemu.
> >>> So a setprop() on that is automatically a setprop() everywhere (this
> >>> is another reason not to write the fdt into guest memory in the nobios
> >>> case - it will become stale as soon as the client changes anything).
> >>
> >>
> >> True to a degree. It is "setprop" to the current fdt blob which we do not
> >> analyze after we build the fdt. We either need to do parse the tree before
> >> we rebuild it as CAS so we do not lose the updates or do selective changes
> >> to the QEMUs objects from the "setprop" handler (this is what I do
> >> now).
> >
> > Hrm.. do those setprops happen before CAS?
>
> Yes, vmlinux/zimage call "setprop" for "linux,initrd-start",
> "linux,initrd-end", "bootargs", "linux,stdout-path"; vmlinux sets
> properties if linux,initrd-* came from r3/r4 and zImage sets properties
> no matter how it discovered them - from r3/r4 or the device tree.
Ok, and those setprops happen before CAS?
In a sense this is kind of a fundamental problem with rebuilding the
whole DT at CAS time. Except that strictly speaking it's a problem
even without that: we just get away with it by accident because CAS
isn't likely to change the same things that guest setprops do.
It's still basically unsynchronized mutations by two parties to a
shared data structure.
> btw we write them as "cells" (==4bytes long) in qemu but vminux changes
> them to 8 bytes and zImage keeps it 4 bytes. Not a problem but an
> interesting fact, this is why I had to allow extending the properties in
> "setprop" :)
>
>
> > I would have thought we'd
> > call CAS before instantiating RTAS.
>
> This is correct but I do not think the order is mandatory.
Hm, right.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, (continued)
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, David Gibson, 2020/01/05
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, Alexey Kardashevskiy, 2020/01/06
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, David Gibson, 2020/01/06
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, Alexey Kardashevskiy, 2020/01/06
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, Cédric Le Goater, 2020/01/06
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, Peter Maydell, 2020/01/06
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/01/06
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, Alexey Kardashevskiy, 2020/01/06
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, David Gibson, 2020/01/07
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, Alexey Kardashevskiy, 2020/01/07
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF,
David Gibson <=
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, Alexey Kardashevskiy, 2020/01/09
- Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, David Gibson, 2020/01/12
Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, Alexey Kardashevskiy, 2020/01/06
Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, Alexey Kardashevskiy, 2020/01/06
Re: [PATCH qemu v2] spapr: Kill SLOF, David Gibson, 2020/01/08