On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:23:25AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 04:57:50AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 07:51:09AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > It's up to the relevant maintainers who know what the semantics are.
> > FYI ACPI tables only change across a reset though.
> > So it's a question of whether guests get confused even if this
> > changes after a reboot.
>
> Yup, but it's still the same "machine", so a user may wonder why it
> changed.
>
> > Versioning is generally safer, but it's a good idea to document
> > the motivation for it.
> >
>
> Well, in this case, we could probably push this change to old machine
> types and nobody would notice. If a guest is using ACPI, then it must
> be using firmware, and if they're using firmware, then they can't be
> using the flash. So the user shouldn't care if it's there or not. The
> only justification for the versioning is because "it's safer". If
> people feel strongly about avoiding versioning when it's not obviously
> necessary, then I can respin without it.
>
> Thanks,
> drew
It's up to maintainers either way, but please do tweak the motivation in the
commit log
to include the above.
--
MST
