linux-kernel - Re: kexec boot regression

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:43:00 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	rdreier@...co.com, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: kexec boot regression

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [PATCH] x86/pci: intel ioh bus num reg accessing fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is above 0x100, so if mmconf is not enable, need to skip it
>>>>>>>>>>>> This works, it kexecs kernels fine. But since 2.6.32 doesn't have the
>>>>>>>>>>>> mmconf problem to begin with, are we now just working around the issue?
>>>>>>>>>>>> SRAT still reports issues, numa doesn't work.
>>>>>>>>>>> that patch will be bullet proof... we need it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> also still need to figure out why memmap range is not passed properly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> do you mean 2.6.32 kexec 2.6.32 it have worked mmconf and numa in
>>>>>>>>>>> second kernel?
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, 2.6.32 booted and 2.6.32 kexec'ed works just fine, no SRAT
>>>>>>>>>> complaints and NUMA works fine.
>>>>>>>>> do you need 
>>>>>>>>> memmap=62G@4G
>>>>>>>>> in this case?
>>>>>>>> Yes, I've needed that always.
>>>>>>> good,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can you enable debug option in kexec to see why kexec can not pass
>>>>>>> whole 38? range to second kernel?
>>>>>> Not getting any output so far, -d doesn't do much. Poking around in the
>>>>>> source...
>>>>> OK, cold boot and kexec 2.0.1 gets all 39 ranges passed properly to
>>>>> kexec'ed kernels. Since the older kexec stopped at range 30 (31 ranges
>>>>> total), that smells like just a kexec bug. Retesting -git...
>>>> Current -git works fine when all the ranges are passed correctly. So, I
>>>> think, the only existing regression is the SRAT issue.
>>> did you change node_shift?
>> Yes:
>>
>> CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=6
>>
>> What I don't get is that 2.6.32 and -git print the same PXM map, and in
>> both cases it's totalling exactly 64G. Yet it says:
>>
>> SRAT: PXMs only cover 49035MB of your 65419MB e820 RAM. Not used.
> 
> Clue:
> 
> [    0.000000] SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 0-80000000
> [    0.000000] SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 100000000-480000000
> [    0.000000] SRAT: Node 2 PXM 1 480000000-880000000
> [    0.000000] SRAT: Node 1 PXM 2 880000000-c80000000
> [    0.000000] SRAT: Node 3 PXM 3 c80000000-1080000000
> [    0.000000] NUMA: Using 31 for the hash shift.
> [    0.000000] pxm0: 0-480000 (4718592), absent 553990
> [    0.000000] pxm1: 880000-c80000 (4194304), absent 0
> [    0.000000] pxm2: 480000-880000 (4194304), absent 4194304
> [    0.000000] pxm3: c80000-1080000 (4194304), absent 0
> [    0.000000] SRAT: PXMs only cover 49035MB of your 65419MB e820 RAM.  Not used.
> [    0.000000] SRAT: SRAT not used.
> 

oh, i post one patch last week, 

can you check it?

YH

Download attachment "Attached Message" of type "message/rfc822" (5722 bytes)