linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kdump: force page alignment for per-CPU crash notes.

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: <20120301025038.GD10053@verge.net.au>
Date:	Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:50:39 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	surovegin@...gle.com, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vgoyal@...hat.com,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kdump: force page alignment for per-CPU crash notes.

On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:51:26AM +0900, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
> From: Eugene Surovegin <surovegin@...gle.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kdump: force page alignment for per-CPU crash notes.
> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:39:55 -0800
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote:
> >> 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.
> > 
> > Currently, maximum note size is hardcoded in kexec-tools to 1024
> > (MAX_NOTE_BYTES).
> > Usually it's way less. IIRC on x86_64 it's 336 bytes.

I presume that MAX_NOTE_BYTES was chosen to be large to
minimise the chance that it would ever need to be changed.

> This is elf_prstatus and I guess it's mostly equal to registers.
> 
> crash> p sizeof(struct elf_prstatus)
> $3 = 336
> crash> ptype struct elf_prstatus
> type = struct elf_prstatus {
>     struct elf_siginfo pr_info;
>     short int pr_cursig;
>     long unsigned int pr_sigpend;
>     long unsigned int pr_sighold;
>     pid_t pr_pid;
>     pid_t pr_ppid;
>     pid_t pr_pgrp;
>     pid_t pr_sid;
>     struct timeval pr_utime;
>     struct timeval pr_stime;
>     struct timeval pr_cutime;
>     struct timeval pr_cstime;
>     elf_gregset_t pr_reg; <-- this
>     int pr_fpvalid;
> }
> 
> What kinds of architecture does have so many registers? It's just my
> interest. Or possibly other kinds of notes is written here?

The winner seems to be ia64 with 128.
--
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/