On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:49:07AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:09:37 +0200
> Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > The flash device is exclusively for the host-controlled firmware, so
> > we should not expose it to the OS. Exposing it risks the OS messing
> > with it, which could break firmware runtime services and surprise the
> > OS when all its changes disappear after reboot.
> >
> > As firmware needs the device and uses DT, we leave the device exposed
> > there. It's up to firmware to remove the nodes from DT before sending
> > it on to the OS. However, there's no need to force firmware to remove
> > tables from ACPI (which it doesn't know how to do anyway), so we
> > simply don't add the tables in the first place. But, as we've been
> > adding the tables for quite some time and don't want to change the
> > default hardware exposed to versioned machines, then we only stop
> > exposing the flash device tables for 5.1 and later machine types.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@arm.com>
> > Suggested-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 5 ++++-
> > hw/arm/virt.c | 3 +++
> > include/hw/arm/virt.h | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> > index 1384a2cf2ab4..91f0df7b13a3 100644
> > --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> > +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> > @@ -749,6 +749,7 @@ static void build_fadt_rev5(GArray *table_data,
> > BIOSLinker *linker,
> > static void
> > build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms)
> > {
> > + VirtMachineClass *vmc = VIRT_MACHINE_GET_CLASS(vms);
> > Aml *scope, *dsdt;
> > MachineState *ms = MACHINE(vms);
> > const MemMapEntry *memmap = vms->memmap;
> > @@ -767,7 +768,9 @@ build_dsdt(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker,
> > VirtMachineState *vms)
> > acpi_dsdt_add_cpus(scope, vms->smp_cpus);
> > acpi_dsdt_add_uart(scope, &memmap[VIRT_UART],
> > (irqmap[VIRT_UART] + ARM_SPI_BASE));
> > - acpi_dsdt_add_flash(scope, &memmap[VIRT_FLASH]);
> > + if (vmc->acpi_expose_flash) {
> > + acpi_dsdt_add_flash(scope, &memmap[VIRT_FLASH]);
> > + }
> > acpi_dsdt_add_fw_cfg(scope, &memmap[VIRT_FW_CFG]);
> > acpi_dsdt_add_virtio(scope, &memmap[VIRT_MMIO],
> > (irqmap[VIRT_MMIO] + ARM_SPI_BASE),
> > NUM_VIRTIO_TRANSPORTS);
> > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
> > index cd0834ce7faf..5adc9ff799ef 100644
> > --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
> > +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
> > @@ -2482,9 +2482,12 @@ DEFINE_VIRT_MACHINE_AS_LATEST(5, 1)
> >
> > static void virt_machine_5_0_options(MachineClass *mc)
> > {
> > + VirtMachineClass *vmc = VIRT_MACHINE_CLASS(OBJECT_CLASS(mc));
> > +
> > virt_machine_5_1_options(mc);
> > compat_props_add(mc->compat_props, hw_compat_5_0, hw_compat_5_0_len);
> > mc->numa_mem_supported = true;
> > + vmc->acpi_expose_flash = true;
>
> we usually do not version ACPI tables changes
> (unless we have a good reason to do so)
Even when the change is to remove the exposure of hardware from the guest?
Before this change, if a guest looked, it had a flash, after this change,
if a guest looks, it doesn't. I'd feel much better versioning a change
like that, than not.
Thanks,
drew
>
> > }
> > DEFINE_VIRT_MACHINE(5, 0)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/hw/arm/virt.h b/include/hw/arm/virt.h
> > index 31878ddc7223..c65be5fe0bb6 100644
> > --- a/include/hw/arm/virt.h
> > +++ b/include/hw/arm/virt.h
> > @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ typedef struct {
> > bool no_highmem_ecam;
> > bool no_ged; /* Machines < 4.2 has no support for ACPI GED device */
> > bool kvm_no_adjvtime;
> > + bool acpi_expose_flash;
> > } VirtMachineClass;
> >
> > typedef struct {
>
>
