linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: kexec: Relax SMP validation to improve DT compatibility

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:	Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:00:26 -0700
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
CC:	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: kexec: Relax SMP validation to improve DT compatibility

On 02/26/2015 10:42 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:37:08AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> When trying to kexec into a new kernel on a platform where multiple CPU
>> cores are present, but no SMP bringup code is available yet, the
>> kexec_load system call fails with:
>>
>>      kexec_load failed: Invalid argument
>>
>> The SMP test added to machine_kexec_prepare() in commit 2103f6cba61a8b8b
>> ("ARM: 7807/1: kexec: validate CPU hotplug support") wants to prohibit
>> kexec on SMP platforms where it cannot disable secondary CPUs.
>> However, this test is too strict: if the secondary CPUs couldn't be
>> enabled in the first place, there's no need to disable them later at
>> kexec time.  Hence skip the test in the absence of SMP bringup code.
>
> Hmm.  I don't think we should relax it in this manner - I think there's
> an easier solution to this.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/machine_kexec.c b/arch/arm/kernel/machine_kexec.c
>> index de2b085ad7535da7..8bf3b7c098881b95 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/machine_kexec.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/machine_kexec.c
>> @@ -46,7 +46,8 @@ int machine_kexec_prepare(struct kimage *image)
>>   	 * and implements CPU hotplug for the current HW. If not, we won't be
>>   	 * able to kexec reliably, so fail the prepare operation.
>>   	 */
>> -	if (num_possible_cpus() > 1 && !platform_can_cpu_hotplug())
>> +	if (num_possible_cpus() > 1 && platform_can_secondary_boot() &&
>> +	    !platform_can_cpu_hotplug())
>
> 	if (num_online_cpus() > 1 && !platform_can_cpu_hotplug())

I can't remember the call stack here. Is num_online_cpus() guaranteed 
not to change from this point through to when the kexec actually happens?

>
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>
> Neither test is actually accurate though: when we have implementations
> where the secondary CPUs spin inside the kernel when they're "unplugged"
> that is not sufficient to be able to kexec.
>
> We should probably fix that, and make platform_can_cpu_hotplug() report
> whether it really is possible to hotplug all secondary CPUs into such
> a state that kexec can work.
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/