Philippe, thanks for the fast review,

John, thanks for picking up this hot potato :-)

Sam

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:16 PM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:
On 9/26/19 9:09 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 9/26/19 8:26 PM, John Snow wrote:
>> On 9/26/19 5:57 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> Hi Sam,
>>>
>>> On 9/25/19 1:06 PM, Sam Eiderman wrote:
>>>> From: Sam Eiderman <shmuel.eiderman@oracle.com>
>>>>
>>>> Using fw_cfg, supply logical CHS values directly from QEMU to the BIOS.
>>>>
>>>> Non-standard logical geometries break under QEMU.
>>>>
>>>> A virtual disk which contains an operating system which depends on
>>>> logical geometries (consistent values being reported from BIOS INT13
>>>> AH=08) will most likely break under QEMU/SeaBIOS if it has non-standard
>>>> logical geometries - for example 56 SPT (sectors per track).
>>>> No matter what QEMU will report - SeaBIOS, for large enough disks - will
>>>> use LBA translation, which will report 63 SPT instead.
>>>>
>>>> In addition we cannot force SeaBIOS to rely on physical geometries at
>>>> all. A virtio-blk-pci virtual disk with 255 phyiscal heads cannot
>>>> report more than 16 physical heads when moved to an IDE controller,
>>>> since the ATA spec allows a maximum of 16 heads - this is an artifact of
>>>> virtualization.
>>>>
>>>> By supplying the logical geometries directly we are able to support such
>>>> "exotic" disks.
>>>>
>>>> We serialize this information in a similar way to the "bootorder"
>>>> interface.
>>>> The new fw_cfg entry is "bios-geometry".
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Karl Heubaum <karl.heubaum@oracle.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Arbel Moshe <arbel.moshe@oracle.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sam Eiderman <shmuel.eiderman@oracle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  bootdevice.c            | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c       | 14 +++++++++++---
>>>>  include/sysemu/sysemu.h |  1 +
>>>>  3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/bootdevice.c b/bootdevice.c
>>>> index 2b12fb85a4..b034ad7bdc 100644
>>>> --- a/bootdevice.c
>>>> +++ b/bootdevice.c
>>>> @@ -405,3 +405,35 @@ void del_boot_device_lchs(DeviceState *dev, const char *suffix)
>>>>          }
>>>>      }
>>>>  }
>>>> +
>>>> +/* Serialized as: (device name\0 + lchs struct) x devices */
>>>> +char *get_boot_devices_lchs_list(size_t *size)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    FWLCHSEntry *i;
>>>> +    size_t total = 0;
>>>> +    char *list = NULL;
>>>> +
>>>> +    QTAILQ_FOREACH(i, &fw_lchs, link) {
>>>> +        char *bootpath;
>>>> +        char *chs_string;
>>>> +        size_t len;
>>>> +
>>>> +        bootpath = get_boot_device_path(i->dev, false, i->suffix);
>>>> +        chs_string = g_strdup_printf("%s %" PRIu32 " %" PRIu32 " %" PRIu32,
>>>> +                                     bootpath, i->lcyls, i->lheads, i->lsecs);
>>>
>>> Hmm maybe we can g_free(bootpath) directly here.
>>>
>>
>> I think it's okay to do it at the bottom of the loop. No real benefit to
>> being that eager to free resources in my mind. I expect setup at the top
>> of a block and teardown at the bottom of a block.
>>
>> Trying to do too much in the middle gets messy in my opinion, not that
>> it seems to matter here.
>
> No problem.
>
>>>> +
>>>> +        if (total) {
>>>> +            list[total - 1] = '\n';
>>>> +        }
>>>> +        len = strlen(chs_string) + 1;
>>>> +        list = g_realloc(list, total + len);
>>>> +        memcpy(&list[total], chs_string, len);
>>>> +        total += len;
>>>> +        g_free(chs_string);
>>>> +        g_free(bootpath);
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    *size = total;
>>>> +
>>>> +    return list;
>>>> +}
>>>> diff --git a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c
>>>> index 7dc3ac378e..18aff658c0 100644
>>>> --- a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c
>>>> +++ b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c
>>>> @@ -920,13 +920,21 @@ void *fw_cfg_modify_file(FWCfgState *s, const char *filename,
>>>> 
>>>>  static void fw_cfg_machine_reset(void *opaque)
>>>>  {
>>>> +    MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(qdev_get_machine());
>>>> +    FWCfgState *s = opaque;
>>>>      void *ptr;
>>>>      size_t len;
>>>> -    FWCfgState *s = opaque;
>>>> -    char *bootindex = get_boot_devices_list(&len);
>>>> +    char *buf;
>>>> 
>>>> -    ptr = fw_cfg_modify_file(s, "bootorder", (uint8_t *)bootindex, len);
>>>> +    buf = get_boot_devices_list(&len);
>>>> +    ptr = fw_cfg_modify_file(s, "bootorder", (uint8_t *)buf, len);
>>>>      g_free(ptr);
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (!mc->legacy_fw_cfg_order) {
>>>> +        buf = get_boot_devices_lchs_list(&len);
>>>> +        ptr = fw_cfg_modify_file(s, "bios-geometry", (uint8_t *)buf, len);
>>>
>>> OK. Can you add a test in tests/fw_cfg-test.c please?
>>>
>>
>> :D
>>
>>>> +        g_free(ptr);
>>>> +    }
>>>>  }
>>>> 
>>>>  static void fw_cfg_machine_ready(struct Notifier *n, void *data)
>>>> diff --git a/include/sysemu/sysemu.h b/include/sysemu/sysemu.h
>>>> index 5bc5c79cbc..80c57fdc4e 100644
>>>> --- a/include/sysemu/sysemu.h
>>>> +++ b/include/sysemu/sysemu.h
>>>> @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ void validate_bootdevices(const char *devices, Error **errp);
>>>>  void add_boot_device_lchs(DeviceState *dev, const char *suffix,
>>>>                            uint32_t lcyls, uint32_t lheads, uint32_t lsecs);
>>>>  void del_boot_device_lchs(DeviceState *dev, const char *suffix);
>>>> +char *get_boot_devices_lchs_list(size_t *size);
>>>
>>> Please add some documentation. At least 'size' must be non-NULL.
>>>
>>
>> Sure; but I wasn't going to gate on it because this series went unloved
>> for so long. At this point, a follow-up patch is fine.
>
> OK
>
>>
>>> Ideally you should add doc for the other functions added in 3/8
>>> "bootdevice: Add interface to gather LCHS" too.
>>>
>>
>> Same thing here.
>>
>>> John, what do you think about extracting the *boot_device* functions out
>>> of "sysemu.h"?
>>>
>>
>> Potentially worthwhile; but not critical at the moment. The source tree
>> is not the best-organized thing as-is and I don't think it's fair to
>> hold this series up for much longer for nice-to-haves, ultimately.
>>
>> More targeted improvements might avoid the "whose responsibility is it
>> to stage this?" hot potato we played with this one; so I'd rather have
>> smaller follow-up patches handled by the respective maintainers.
>
> Sure, fair enough.

I forgot:
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>