linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH] ARM: kexec: Fix validating CPU hotplug support

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:	Wed, 5 Nov 2014 18:57:06 +0800
From:	Hu Keping <hukeping@...wei.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	<swarren@...dia.com>, <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <sdu.liu@...wei.com>,
	<wangnan0@...wei.com>, <peifeiyue@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] ARM: kexec: Fix validating CPU hotplug support



于 2014/11/4 18:55, Russell King - ARM Linux 写道:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 05:40:25PM +0800, HuKeping wrote:
>> Commit 2103f6cba61a8b8bea3fc1b63661d830a2125e76 added a hotplug checking in
>> machine_kexec_prepare(), but it will lead a failure when loading the
>> crash-kernel in some cases.
>>
>> Kexec utility can load the crash kernel by two ways:
>> 1. kexec -l kernel-image
>> 2. kexec -p kernel-image
>>
>> In case #1, for rapid reboot, it's correct to do the hotplug checking things,
>> for it will shut down cpus in _cpu_down() later when command "kexec -e" be
>> sent, this routine needs the support of cpu hotplug.
>>
>> In case #2, for use on panic, it's unnecessary to do the same thing, the whole
>> routing has no business with cpu shutting down. Check for cpu hot plug will
>> lead a failure to load the kernel.
>
> So what happens to the other CPUs when you kexec into the new kernel,
> possibly overwriting the instructions which those CPUs are executing?
>

Actually, i do think there is something wrong in the panic-rountine:
when panic comes, we clear the cpu_online_bits of other CPUs and
keep them calling cpu_relax(). That's why I post that patch ,because
we do not really shut down the CPUs.

But as your mentioned , there is another problem:
what's in the pc register of each cpu is unknown after the MMU has been
shut down.

On X86, there is a halt() before the cpu_relax(), so do you think we
need a call wfi() before cpu_relax() to keep the other CPUs on
status-WFI on ARM?

--
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/