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]

Message-ID: <20091215214743.GE28252@kernel.dk>
Date:	Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:47:43 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
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>, rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: kexec boot regression

On Tue, Dec 15 2009, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> 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?

Sure, let me try it. I already found out that commit 8716273c is the
guilty one (x86: Export srat physical topology).

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/