linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 31/31] memblock: Add memblock_find_in

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: <1280340633.30808.583.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:10:33 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/31] memblock: Add memblock_find_in_range()

On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 10:53 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/28/2010 10:02 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 23:38 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 07/27/2010 11:08 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>>
> >>> for example: 
> >>> high/low allocation, from first kernel to kexec second kernel, always work fine except system with Qlogic card.
> >>> because Qlogic card is using main RAM as EFT etc for card's FW log trace. second kernel have not idea that those RAM
> >>>  is used by first kernel for that purpose. that the CARD still use that between two kernels.
> >>> second kernel could have crash it try to use those ram.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Uhm, no.  That's a bug in the Qlogic driver not shutting the card down
> >> cleanly.  Hacking around that in memory allocation order is braindamaged
> >> in the extreme.  kexec *cannot* be safe in any way if we don't shut down
> >> pending DMA, and what you describe above is DMA.
> > 
> > That's not the kexec for crash dump requirement as it was communicated
> > to us.  We were specifically told that the shutdown routines *may* not
> > be called before booting the kexec kernel and thus we have to take
> > action to stop the DMA engines in the init routines so the kexec kernel
> > can halt all in-progress DMA as it boots.  This implies that kexec must
> > be able to cope with in-progress DMA.
> > 
> 
> kexec for crash dump is a special case: for crash dump, there is a chunk
> of memory pre-reserved for the crash kernel, and that is the *only*
> memory that the crash kernel will use.  In other words, everything else
> is reserved memory as far as the crash kernel is concerned.  As such, it
> should not be affected; there may be DMA still pending to the main
> kernel's memory area, of course, but as far as the crash kernel is
> concerned, that should just be input data.
> 
> If allocation order somehow matters for the *crash kernel*, then we have
> even more fundamental problems...
> 
> Obviously, if there is DMA going on to the crash kernel reserved region
> then all bets are off, but at that point the system is so screwed anyway
> that it shouldn't matter.

So I don't understand the problem.  Proper shutdown of the old kernel
will halt all the DMA engines (by design ... we can't have DMA ongoing
if the next action might be power off).  The only case I know where DMA
engines may be active is the crash kernel case.

James


--
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/