Subject: [PATCH] arm64/efi: remove spurious WARN_ON for !4K kernels

From: [email-masked] (Jeremy Linton)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:38:19 -0500

On 05/25/2016 10:11 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Since commit 1fd55a9a09b0293a ("arm64/efi: Apply strict permissions to
> UEFI Runtime Services regions"), booting a !4K page kernel results in a
> boot-time splat on some systems, due to to a WARN_ONCE added in that
> commit which fires if the base address of an EFI memory descriptor is
> not aligned to the kernel page size (which might be 4K, 16K, or 64K).
>
> On page 38 of the UEFI 2.6 specification it is stated:
>
> 	If a 64KiB physical page contains any 4KiB page with any of the
> 	following types listed below, then all 4KiB pages in the 64KiB
> 	page must use identical ARM Memory Page Attributes (as described
> 	in Table 8):
> 	? EfiRuntimeServicesCode
> 	? EfiRuntimeServicesData
> 	? EfiReserved
> 	? EfiACPIMemoryNVS
> 	Mixed attribute mappings within a larger page are not allowed.
>
> On page 158 of the UEFI 2.6 specification, in the description of a
> memory descriptor, the PhysicalStart and VirtualStart fields are
> mandated as being 4K aligned, with NumberOfPages describing the number
> of 4K pages in the region.
>
> No further restriction on alignment is provided in the UEFI
> specification, neither generically nor in a rule specific to AArch64.
>
> So while attributes within a naturally-aligned 64K region must be
> consistent across memory descriptors, the regions described by those
> descriptors are not mandated to be 64K aligned.
>
> Not being able to apply strict permissions is sub-optimal, and worthy of
> some notice, but it is not helpful to erroneously suggest that firmware
> is buggy, nor is it beneficial to have a noisy backtrace at boot time.

>
> This patch downgrades the WARN_ONCE to a pr_warn_once, and re-words the
> message to also describe the implication of the insufficient alignment.

I've been seeing this a lot, and this should help to lower the noise level.

Reviewed-by: Jeremy Linton <[email-masked]>

Thanks,

>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Jeremy Linton <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Leif Lindholm <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Matt Fleming <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Will Deacon <[email-masked]>
> Cc: linux-efi at vger.kernel.org
> ---
>   arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c | 5 +++--
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c
> index 78f5248..95e748e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c
> @@ -30,14 +30,15 @@ static __init pteval_t create_mapping_protection(efi_memory_desc_t *md)
>   	if (type == EFI_MEMORY_MAPPED_IO)
>   		return PROT_DEVICE_nGnRE;
>
> -	if (WARN_ONCE(!PAGE_ALIGNED(md->phys_addr),
> -		      "UEFI Runtime regions are not aligned to 64 KB -- buggy firmware?"))
> +	if (!PAGE_ALIGNED(md->phys_addr)) {
> +		pr_warn_once("UEFI Runtime regions insufficiently aligned for strict permissions\n");
>   		/*
>   		 * If the region is not aligned to the page size of the OS, we
>   		 * can not use strict permissions, since that would also affect
>   		 * the mapping attributes of the adjacent regions.
>   		 */
>   		return pgprot_val(PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC);
> +	}
>
>   	/* R-- */
>   	if ((attr & (EFI_MEMORY_XP | EFI_MEMORY_RO)) ==
>