Hi Alex,
On 19 October 2018 at 01:27, Alexander Graf agraf@suse.de wrote:
On 19.10.18 05:25, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 16 October 2018 at 06:55, Alexander Graf agraf@suse.de wrote:
On 15.10.18 16:17, Simon Glass wrote:
At present this code casts addresses to pointers so cannot be used with sandbox. Update it to use mapmem instead.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Unfortunately this won't work. The SMBIOS2 structure itself contains a physical pointer to the target address (which in EFI lands really has to be linear physical pointer). This pointer gets set based on "addr" in write_smbios_table():
tables = addr; [...] se->struct_table_address = tables;Does that actually matter? We will never actually boot anything on sandbox that will use that address.
Why not? We can boot the UEFI Shell today - and that can use the "address".
OK, so UEFI shell uses the SMBIOS tables? I didn't know that.
Also sandbox addresses are always <4GB (they start at 0).
U-Boot addresses are <4GB but pointers are >4GB.
Actually I have applied a patch to fix that.
U-Boot addresses are also a U-Boot internal concept. We don't have any means to expose their semantics to UEFI applications. So anything inside a data structure that is shared with UEFI that says "address" really means "pointer".
So since any UEFI application that we execute is only aware of pointers, we can not represent the pointer in the field. And that breaks every consumer of it.
Yes we must use pointers in this case, I agree. This needs a map_sysmem() call and a check that it does not overflow.
So I think the only thing we can do for now is to just graciously fail SMBIOS generation (maybe only on sandbox?) when we can not find a pointer that is < U32_MAX.
The shortcoming above was fixed with SMBIOS3, so the "good" path forward would be to add SMBIOS3 support and just not rely on 32bit pointers at all. I don't remember OTOH if SMBIOS3 stores offsets or 64bit pointers to the tables. Depending on that we can either use your maps or we can't.
Maybe I prefer device tree as it avoid this sort of thing :-)
DT is orthogonal to SMBIOS. SMBIOS describes OEM information, such as "chassy name", "how DIMM slots are populated", etc.
Sure, you could start and map SMBIOS information into a Linux specific DT node, but what's the point if we have SMBIOS already ;).
I'm not suggesting we do it, just whining about these legacy data structures :-)
Regards, Simon