On 10/29/24 09:48, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
Hi Heinrich
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 at 10:00, Ilias Apalodimas
<ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote:
Hi Heinrich
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 at 08:37, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote:
On 10/24/24 12:46, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
We never unmap the memory used to update the EFI memory map after
notifications
Fixes: commit 2f6191526a13 ("lmb: notify of any changes to the LMB memory map")
Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org>
---
lib/lmb.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c
index 890e2cbfdf6b..38c6e1d5ba8d 100644
--- a/lib/lmb.c
+++ b/lib/lmb.c
@@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused lmb_map_update_notify(phys_addr_t
addr,
status & ~EFI_ERROR_MASK);
return -1;
}
+ unmap_sysmem((void *)(uintptr_t)efi_addr);
If PCI memory was ever mapped via pci_map_physmem(), I don't think that
we want to unmap it here.
Ok, so looking at it again, not calling unmap_sysmem() here won't
break anything, so I guess we can drop this patch.
Looking at it again, for special sandbox tags, we need to correctly
decrease the refcnt. So why do you think this isnt needed here?
Thanks
/Ilias
Reviewed-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de>
Why do we map the memory in this notification function first hand?
Because the memory was added as such in efi_allocate_pages(). So for
sandbox we need to find the correct virtual memory that was added.
Can't
we use len = 0 when calling map_sysmem()?
We are using len = 0. But I am not following up on how could this
help. All you will get is a warning for sanbox if a pci device mapped
more that 0.
Thanks
/Ilias
I guess we have to critically review all map_sysmem() calls.
Best regards
Heinrich
return 0;
}
