Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 4/4] OvmfPkg: don't assign PCI BARs above 4GiB when CSM enabled
On 06/27/19 21:16, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 21:01 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> >> To clarify -- this is by no means to say that *SeaBIOS* is a relic. I >> absolutely don't imply that. Users should use the firmware they need, >> especially in the virtual world, where choosing is really easy. > > Choosing is easy if you're running qemu on your desktop box. > > If the owner of the guest doesn't also own the host, then you're into > "configurability", which means guests either having to *explicitly* > manage which firmware they get which is a pain for the customer, Depends on the customer. They are capable of choosing the OS they want. At least some of them are able to (and/or prefer to) choose the firmware under their OS too. In the opposite direction, the "libosinfo" project already tracks minute details of guest OSes (for example, what version of the virtio spec the OS's drivers support), so that users can get "optimized defaults", when they create domains. Adding "preferred firmware" shouldn't be infeasible IMO, if it were necessary. > or some kind of half-arsed guessing about which firmware to use, based > on poking around in the image that's being booted. Which doesn't > generally go well either. > > There's a reason Intel went for the one-size-fits-all on real > hardware, and it applies just as well to (some, but not all) virtual > hosting too. Quoting an earlier message from the list: http://mid.mail-archive.com/4dfb6a1f-da8f-4141-8687-be968ff261a9@hpe.com On 01/25/19 21:28, Brian J. Johnson wrote: > In fall of 2017, Intel declared their intention to end legacy BIOS > support on their platforms by 2020. > > http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/Brian_Richardson_Intel_Final.pdf > > > I believe they have stuck to this story at subsequent UEFI plugfests. Anyway: CSM_ENABLE works again, thanks to you, so people can build it usefully again. I'd just like to keep it default-off up-stream. Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43022): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/43022 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32213812/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 4/4] OvmfPkg: don't assign PCI BARs above 4GiB when CSM enabled
On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 21:01 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > To clarify -- this is by no means to say that *SeaBIOS* is a relic. I > absolutely don't imply that. Users should use the firmware they need, > especially in the virtual world, where choosing is really easy. Choosing is easy if you're running qemu on your desktop box. If the owner of the guest doesn't also own the host, then you're into "configurability", which means guests either having to *explicitly* manage which firmware they get which is a pain for the customer, or some kind of half-arsed guessing about which firmware to use, based on poking around in the image that's being booted. Which doesn't generally go well either. There's a reason Intel went for the one-size-fits-all on real hardware, and it applies just as well to (some, but not all) virtual hosting too. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#42947): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/42947 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32213812/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 4/4] OvmfPkg: don't assign PCI BARs above 4GiB when CSM enabled
On 06/27/19 20:43, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 06/27/19 18:36, Alexander Graf wrote: >> That way we could have CSM enabled OVMF for everyone ;) > > Well, as long as we're discussing "everyone": we should forget about the > CSM altogether, in the long term. The CSM is a concession towards OSes > that are stuck in the past; a concession that is hugely complex and > difficult to debug & maintain. It is also incompatible with Secure Boot. > Over time, we should spend less and less time & energy on the CSM. Just > my opinion, of course. :) To clarify -- this is by no means to say that *SeaBIOS* is a relic. I absolutely don't imply that. Users should use the firmware they need, especially in the virtual world, where choosing is really easy. But the *CSM* is just an elaborate workaround for the user, to circumvent a decision that a platform vendor made for him/her unsolicitedly. In the virtual world in particular, I don't think such workarounds should be necessary; the platform vendor should *please* the user, and give them SeaBIOS directly, if they want that. (Again, just my opinion -- I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't taking a stab at SeaBIOS. That would be *foolish*.) Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#42946): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/42946 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32213812/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 4/4] OvmfPkg: don't assign PCI BARs above 4GiB when CSM enabled
On 06/27/19 18:36, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Hi David and Laszlo,
>
> (with broken threading because gmane still mirrors the old ML ...)
>
>> Mostly, this is only necessary for devices that the CSM might have
>> native support for, such as VirtIO and NVMe; PciBusDxe will already
>> degrade devices to 32-bit if they have an OpROM.
>>
>> However, there doesn't seem to be a generic way of requesting PciBusDxe
>> to downgrade specific devices.
>>
>> There's IncompatiblePciDeviceSupportProtocol but that doesn't provide
>> the PCI class information or a handle to the device itself, so there's
>> no simple way to just match on all NVMe devices, for example.
>>
>> Just leave gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size set to zero for
>> CSM builds, until/unless that can be fixed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse
>> Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek
>> ---
>> OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc | 4
>> OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc | 4
>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc
>> index 639e33cb285f..ad20531ceb8b 100644
>> --- a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc
>> +++ b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc
>> @@ -543,7 +543,11 @@ [PcdsDynamicDefault]
>> gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio32Base|0x0
>> gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio32Size|0x0
>> gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Base|0x0
>> +!ifdef $(CSM_ENABLE)
>> + gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size|0x0
>> +!else
>> gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size|0x8
>> +!endif
>>
>> gEfiMdePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPlatformBootTimeOut|0
>>
>> diff --git a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc
>> index 69a3497c2c9e..0542ac2235b4 100644
>> --- a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc
>> +++ b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc
>> @@ -542,7 +542,11 @@ [PcdsDynamicDefault]
>> gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio32Base|0x0
>> gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio32Size|0x0
>> gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Base|0x0
>> +!ifdef $(CSM_ENABLE)
>> + gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size|0x0
>
> IIRC x86 Linux just takes firmware provided BAR maps as they are and
> doesn't map on its own.
That's correct.
> Or does it map if a BAR was previously unmapped?
My understanding is that Linux re-maps the BARs if it dislikes something
(e.g. root bridge apertures described in ACPI _CRS do not cover some
ranges programmed into actual BARs).
IIUC reallocation can be requested on the kernel cmdline as well, with
pci=realloc.
I believe you could test your question with the "pci-testdev" QEMU
device model -- in QEMU commit 417463341e3e ("pci-testdev: add optional
memory bar", 2018-11-05), Gerd added the "membar" property for just that
(IIRC).
> In the former case, wouldn't that mean that we're breaking GPU
> passthrough (*big* BARs) for OVMF if the OVMF version happens to support
> CSM? So if a distro decides to turn on CSM, that would be a very subtle
> regression.
Yes, this is in theory a possible regression. It requires the user to
combine huge BARs with an OVMF build that includes the CSM.
I've been aware of this, but it seems like such a corner case that I
didn't intend to raise it. To begin with, building OVMF with the CSM is
a niche use case in itself.
David described (but I've forgotten the details, by now) some kind of
setup or service where a user cannot choose between pure SeaBIOS and
pure OVMF, for their virtual machine. They are given just one firmware,
and so in order to let users boot both legacy and UEFI OSes, it makes
sense for the service provider to offer OVMF+CSM.
Fine -- but, in that kind of service, where users are prevented from
picking one of two "pure" firmwares, do we really expect users to have
the configuration freedom to shove GPUs with huge BARs into their VMs?
> Would it be possible to change the PCI mapping logic to just simply
> *prefer* low BAR space if there's some available and the BAR is not big
> (<64MB for example)?
PciBusDxe in MdeModulePkg is practically untouchable, at such a
"strategy" level. We can fix bugs in it, but only surgically. (This is
not something that I endorse, I'm just observing it.)
Platforms are expected to influence the behavior of PciBusDxe through
implementing the "incompatible pci device support" protocol. OVMF
already does that (IncompatiblePciDeviceSupportDxe), but the protocol
interface (from the PI spec) is not flexible enough for what David
actually wanted. Otherwise, this restriction would have been expressed
per-controller.
If the problem that you describe above outweighs the issue that David
intends to mitigate with the patch, in a given service, then the vendor
can rebuild OVMF with a suitable "--pcd=..." option. Or else, they can
even use
-fw_cfg name=opt/ovmf/X-PciMmio64Mb,string=32768
dynamically, on the QEMU command line. (Please see commit 7e5b1b670c38,
"OvmfPkg: PlatformPei: determine the 64-bit PCI host aperture for X64
DXE", 2016-03-23.)
> That way we could have CSM enabled OVMF for
Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 4/4] OvmfPkg: don't assign PCI BARs above 4GiB when CSM enabled
Hi David and Laszlo, (with broken threading because gmane still mirrors the old ML ...) Mostly, this is only necessary for devices that the CSM might have native support for, such as VirtIO and NVMe; PciBusDxe will already degrade devices to 32-bit if they have an OpROM. However, there doesn't seem to be a generic way of requesting PciBusDxe to downgrade specific devices. There's IncompatiblePciDeviceSupportProtocol but that doesn't provide the PCI class information or a handle to the device itself, so there's no simple way to just match on all NVMe devices, for example. Just leave gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size set to zero for CSM builds, until/unless that can be fixed. Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek --- OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc | 4 OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc | 4 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc index 639e33cb285f..ad20531ceb8b 100644 --- a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc +++ b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc @@ -543,7 +543,11 @@ [PcdsDynamicDefault] gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio32Base|0x0 gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio32Size|0x0 gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Base|0x0 +!ifdef $(CSM_ENABLE) + gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size|0x0 +!else gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size|0x8 +!endif gEfiMdePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPlatformBootTimeOut|0 diff --git a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc index 69a3497c2c9e..0542ac2235b4 100644 --- a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc +++ b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc @@ -542,7 +542,11 @@ [PcdsDynamicDefault] gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio32Base|0x0 gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio32Size|0x0 gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Base|0x0 +!ifdef $(CSM_ENABLE) + gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size|0x0 IIRC x86 Linux just takes firmware provided BAR maps as they are and doesn't map on its own. Or does it map if a BAR was previously unmapped? In the former case, wouldn't that mean that we're breaking GPU passthrough (*big* BARs) for OVMF if the OVMF version happens to support CSM? So if a distro decides to turn on CSM, that would be a very subtle regression. Would it be possible to change the PCI mapping logic to just simply *prefer* low BAR space if there's some available and the BAR is not big (<64MB for example)? That way we could have CSM enabled OVMF for everyone ;) Alex +!else gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size|0x8 +!endif gEfiMdePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPlatformBootTimeOut|0 -- 2.21.0 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#42943): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/42943 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32213812/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 4/4] OvmfPkg: don't assign PCI BARs above 4GiB when CSM enabled
Mostly, this is only necessary for devices that the CSM might have native support for, such as VirtIO and NVMe; PciBusDxe will already degrade devices to 32-bit if they have an OpROM. However, there doesn't seem to be a generic way of requesting PciBusDxe to downgrade specific devices. There's IncompatiblePciDeviceSupportProtocol but that doesn't provide the PCI class information or a handle to the device itself, so there's no simple way to just match on all NVMe devices, for example. Just leave gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size set to zero for CSM builds, until/unless that can be fixed. Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek --- OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc | 4 OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc | 4 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc index 639e33cb285f..ad20531ceb8b 100644 --- a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc +++ b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc @@ -543,7 +543,11 @@ [PcdsDynamicDefault] gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio32Base|0x0 gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio32Size|0x0 gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Base|0x0 +!ifdef $(CSM_ENABLE) + gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size|0x0 +!else gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size|0x8 +!endif gEfiMdePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPlatformBootTimeOut|0 diff --git a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc index 69a3497c2c9e..0542ac2235b4 100644 --- a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc +++ b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc @@ -542,7 +542,11 @@ [PcdsDynamicDefault] gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio32Base|0x0 gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio32Size|0x0 gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Base|0x0 +!ifdef $(CSM_ENABLE) + gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size|0x0 +!else gUefiOvmfPkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPciMmio64Size|0x8 +!endif gEfiMdePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdPlatformBootTimeOut|0 -- 2.21.0 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#42886): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/42886 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32213812/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
