[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190108032251.GA30348@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 11:22:51 +0800
From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86/kexec: fix a kexec_file_load failure
On 12/28/18 at 09:12am, Dave Young wrote:
> The code cleanup mentioned in Fixes tag changed the behavior of
> kexec_locate_mem_hole. The kexec_locate_mem_hole will try to
> allocate free memory only when kbuf.mem is initialized as zero.
>
> But in x86 kexec_file_load implementation there are a few places
> the kbuf.mem is reused like below:
> /* kbuf initialized, kbuf.mem = 0 */
> ...
> kexec_add_buffer()
> ...
> kexec_add_buffer()
>
> The second kexec_add_buffer will reuse previous kbuf but not
> reinitialize the kbuf.mem.
>
> Thus kexec_file_load failed because the sanity check failed.
>
> So explictily reset kbuf.mem to fix the issue.
>
> Fixes: b6664ba42f14 ("s390, kexec_file: drop arch_kexec_mem_walk()")
> Signed-off-by: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> ---
> V1 -> V2: use KEXEC_BUF_MEM_UNKNOWN in code.
> arch/x86/kernel/crash.c | 1 +
> arch/x86/kernel/kexec-bzimage64.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c b/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
> index f631a3f15587..6b7890c7889b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
> @@ -469,6 +469,7 @@ int crash_load_segments(struct kimage *image)
>
> kbuf.memsz = kbuf.bufsz;
> kbuf.buf_align = ELF_CORE_HEADER_ALIGN;
> + kbuf.mem = KEXEC_BUF_MEM_UNKNOWN;
> ret = kexec_add_buffer(&kbuf);
> if (ret) {
> vfree((void *)image->arch.elf_headers);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kexec-bzimage64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kexec-bzimage64.c
> index 278cd07228dd..0d5efa34f359 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kexec-bzimage64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kexec-bzimage64.c
> @@ -434,6 +434,7 @@ static void *bzImage64_load(struct kimage *image, char *kernel,
> kbuf.memsz = PAGE_ALIGN(header->init_size);
> kbuf.buf_align = header->kernel_alignment;
> kbuf.buf_min = MIN_KERNEL_LOAD_ADDR;
> + kbuf.mem = KEXEC_BUF_MEM_UNKNOWN;
> ret = kexec_add_buffer(&kbuf);
> if (ret)
> goto out_free_params;
> @@ -448,6 +449,7 @@ static void *bzImage64_load(struct kimage *image, char *kernel,
> kbuf.bufsz = kbuf.memsz = initrd_len;
> kbuf.buf_align = PAGE_SIZE;
> kbuf.buf_min = MIN_INITRD_LOAD_ADDR;
> + kbuf.mem = KEXEC_BUF_MEM_UNKNOWN;
> ret = kexec_add_buffer(&kbuf);
> if (ret)
> goto out_free_params;
> --
> 2.17.0
>
Ping, this is a regression issue, can we get this fixed?
Thanks
Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists