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  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:   Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:56:19 +0000
From:   Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@...renesas.com>
To:     Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC:     Ɓukasz Stelmach <l.stelmach@...sung.com>,
        Biju Das <biju.das@...renesas.com>,
        Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@...esas.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "marc.zyngier@....com" <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        "cdall@...aro.org" <cdall@...aro.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] ARM: Debug kernel copy by printing

Thank you Nicolas.

Russel, does it look ok to you? Do you think you can apply this patch?

Thanks,
Fab

> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] ARM: Debug kernel copy by printing
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Fabrizio Castro wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Has anybody had the chance to look into this? Does it make sense? Any feedback at all?
> > Thanks!
>
> Looks fine to me.
>
>
>
> >
> > Fab
> >
> > > Subject: [RFC PATCH] ARM: Debug kernel copy by printing
> > >
> > > It may happen that when we relocate the kernel we corrupt other
> > > sensible memory (e.g. the memory needed by U-Boot for dealing
> > > with bootm command) while copying the kernel. If we overwrite
> > > the content of the memory area used by U-Boot's command bootm
> > > (described by U-Boot's parameters bootm_low and bootm_size),
> > > the kernel won't be able to boot. Troubleshooting the problem
> > > then is not straightforward.
> > >
> > > This commit allows the user to easily print information on
> > > where the kernel gets copied from/to in order to help with the
> > > design of the system memory map (e.g. bootm_low and bootm_size)
> > > at boot up.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro@...renesas.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@...esas.com>
> > > Acked-by: Biju Das <biju.das@...renesas.com>
> > > ---
> > > Dear All,
> > >
> > > shmobile_defconfig doesn't use kernel modules, everything gets
> > > built-in. iwg20d and iwg22d platforms from iWave use uImage
> > > to boot, DRAM starts at address 0x40000000, the kernel gets
> > > loaded up in memory at address 0x40007fc0, bootm_low is
> > > 0x40e00000, and bootm_size is 0x100000.
> > >
> > > The kernel is getting larger and larger, so much so that during
> > > the relocation the kernel is copying itself right where the
> > > bootm memory area lives, preventing Linux from booting.
> > > Here is what this patch prints when applied on top of tag
> > > next-20180625 and running on the iwg22d:
> > >
> > > C:0x400080C0-0x404922A0->0x40E90800-0x4131A9E0
> > >
> > > The designer then has to pick up a suitable memory range for
> > > bootm memory area to fix this, but the only way to successfully
> > > achieve this is by knowing where the kernel is going to copy
> > > itself in memory, so that he can stay clear of it.
> > >
> > > Other platforms that use the same defconfig suffer from the same
> > > issue (e.g. Koelsch et al.) as they have been designed some time
> > > ago or the original BSP was based on an LTS kernel.
> > >
> > > Debugging this basically requires a JTAG debugger at this stage.
> > >
> > > Do you think this patch could be considered acceptable? If not,
> > > what would be the best way to get useful/sensible/debug
> > > information out of the kernel when the problem occours?
> > >
> > > Comments welcome!
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Fab
> > >
> > >  arch/arm/boot/compressed/head.S | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/compressed/head.S b/arch/arm/boot/compressed/head.S
> > > index 517e0e1..6c7ccb4 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/compressed/head.S
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/compressed/head.S
> > > @@ -114,6 +114,35 @@
> > >  #endif
> > >  .endm
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Debug kernel copy by printing the memory addresses involved
> > > + */
> > > +.macro dbgkc, begin, end, cbegin, cend
> > > +#ifdef DEBUG
> > > +kputc   #'\n'
> > > +kputc   #'C'
> > > +kputc   #':'
> > > +kputc   #'0'
> > > +kputc   #'x'
> > > +kphex   \begin, 8/* Start of compressed kernel */
> > > +kputc#'-'
> > > +kputc#'0'
> > > +kputc#'x'
> > > +kphex\end, 8/* End of compressed kernel */
> > > +kputc#'-'
> > > +kputc#'>'
> > > +kputc   #'0'
> > > +kputc   #'x'
> > > +kphex   \cbegin, 8/* Start of kernel copy */
> > > +kputc#'-'
> > > +kputc#'0'
> > > +kputc#'x'
> > > +kphex\cend, 8/* End of kernel copy */
> > > +kputc#'\n'
> > > +kputc#'\r'
> > > +#endif
> > > +.endm
> > > +
> > >  .section ".start", #alloc, #execinstr
> > >  /*
> > >   * sort out different calling conventions
> > > @@ -450,6 +479,20 @@ dtb_check_done:
> > >  addr6, r9, r5
> > >  addr9, r9, r10
> > >
> > > +#ifdef DEBUG
> > > +sub     r10, r6, r5
> > > +sub     r10, r9, r10
> > > +/*
> > > + * We are about to copy the kernel to a new memory area.
> > > + * The boundaries of the new memory area can be found in
> > > + * r10 and r9, whilst r5 and r6 contain the boundaries
> > > + * of the memory we are going to copy.
> > > + * Calling dbgkc will help with the printing of this
> > > + * information.
> > > + */
> > > +dbgkcr5, r6, r10, r9
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > >  1:ldmdbr6!, {r0 - r3, r10 - r12, lr}
> > >  cmpr6, r5
> > >  stmdbr9!, {r0 - r3, r10 - r12, lr}
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Renesas Electronics Europe Ltd, Dukes Meadow, Millboard Road, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, SL8 5FH, UK. Registered in England
> & Wales under Registered No. 04586709.
> >



Renesas Electronics Europe Ltd, Dukes Meadow, Millboard Road, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, SL8 5FH, UK. Registered in England & Wales under Registered No. 04586709.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists