[PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 16/01/2019 à 14:16, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:55:29AM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Le 16/01/2019 à 01:35, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit :
>>> Thinning the kernel down a bit actually makes it boot again. Ooops...!
>>> Maybe enabling CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX has made it just large enough to
>>> fail the hash table allocation, but there may have been other factors
>>> involved (I'm not sure exactly).  Sorry for the confusion!
>>
>> Ok, that must be the reason. Thanks for testing.
>>
>> What about the following modification which maps a second 256Mb BAT, does it
>> helps ?
>>
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S
>> index c2f564690778..ea574596de37 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S
>> @@ -1160,6 +1160,14 @@ initial_bats:
>>   	mtspr	SPRN_DBAT0U,r11		/* bit in upper BAT register */
>>   	mtspr	SPRN_IBAT0L,r8
>>   	mtspr	SPRN_IBAT0U,r11
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_WII
>> +	addis	r11,r11,0x10000000 at h
>> +	addis	r8,r8,0x10000000 at h
>> +	mtspr	SPRN_DBAT2L,r8
>> +	mtspr	SPRN_DBAT2U,r11
>> +	mtspr	SPRN_IBAT2L,r8
>> +	mtspr	SPRN_IBAT2U,r11
>> +#endif
>>   	isync
>>   	blr
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c
>> index 3f4193201ee7..a334fd5210a8 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c
>> @@ -259,6 +259,8 @@ void setup_initial_memory_limit(phys_addr_t
>> first_memblock_base,
>>   	/* 601 can only access 16MB at the moment */
>>   	if (PVR_VER(mfspr(SPRN_PVR)) == 1)
>>   		memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, 0x01000000));
>> +	else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WII))
>> +		memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, 0x20000000));
>>   	else /* Anything else has 256M mapped */
>>   		memblock_set_current_limit(min_t(u64, first_memblock_size, 0x10000000));
>>   }
> 
> I haven't tested it, but this patch won't be enough, because we're only
> looking at the first memblock, and the additional memory in the Wii
> (MEM2) is the second memblock.
> 

Yes right.


Would the following work instead ?

memblock_set_current_limit(0x20000000);


Christophe