linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv7] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X consistent with kaslr

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: <20190204223016.GB11986@anatevka>
Date:   Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:30:16 -0700
From:   Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, yinghai@...nel.org,
        vgoyal@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X
 consistent with kaslr

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 12:47:40AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 03:27:32PM -0700, Jerry Hoemann wrote:
> > So even if a system administrator is diligent and tests
> > that a chosen kdump configuration works, that configuration
> > might not work on some random reboot 7 months in the future.
> 
> Jerry, did you read the rest of the thread where I'm *actually*
> suggesting to make the allocation code more robust against such
> failures?


Boris,

I may have misunderstood your earlier comment:

  So we don't really need this - we simply need to tell people to use high
  if it fails with KASLR, AFAICT

To imply an iterative approach to crashkernel size discovery.  Whereas you
may simply have ment:  Always use ,high as the old way is broken.


> Now let's look at the code:
> 
> The "high" allocation does:
> 
>                 crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN,
>                                                     high ? CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX
>                                                          : CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX,
>                                                     crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
> 
> where high=true and CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX on 64-bit is MAXMEM:
> 
> # define CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX    MAXMEM
> 
> The second fallback in the suggested patch does the same:
> 
> +               /*
> +                * crashkernel=X reserve below 4G fails? Try MAXMEM
> +                */
> +               if (!high && !crash_base)
> +                       crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN,
> +                                               CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX,
> +                                               crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN);
> 
> and yet I get back that falling back to "high" if the first allocation
> doesn't succeed is not something we should do by default because of
> reasons. But this patch *practically* *does* it.


Is your objection only to the second fallback of allocating
memory above >= 4GB?   Or are you objecting to allocating from
(896 .. 4GB) as well?

Falling back to allocating < 4GB probably satisfes most of the cases
where the original allocation fails.

thanks

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hoemann                  Software Engineer   Hewlett Packard Enterprise
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------