[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120301013200.GF16483@verge.net.au>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:32:01 +0900
From: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To: Eugene Surovegin <surovegin@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kexec-list <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kdump: force page alignment for per-CPU crash notes.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 05:23:10PM -0800, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 09:21:23AM -0800, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> > > Per-CPU allocations are not guaranteed to be physically contiguous.
> > > However, kdump kernel and user-space code assumes that per-CPU
> > > memory, used for saving CPU registers on crash, is.
> > > This can cause corrupted /proc/vmcore in some cases - the main
> > > symptom being huge ELF note section.
> > >
> > > Force page alignment for note_buf_t to ensure that this assumption holds.
> >
> > Ouch. I'm surprised there is an allocation on crash, perhaps
> > it could at least be done earlier? And am I right in thinking
> > that this change increases the likely hood that the allocation
> > could fail?
> >
>
> I'm not following. This allocation is done on start-up, not on crash.
> If you cannot allocate this much memory on system boot, I'm not sure what
> else you can do on this system....
Sorry, my eyes deceived me. You are correct and I agree.
Is it the case that note_buf_t is never larger than PAGE_SIZE?
If so I your patch looks good to me.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists