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  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:   Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:04:19 +0800
From:   Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, vgoyal@...hat.com,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7] x86/kdump: bugfix, make the behavior of crashkernel=X
 consistent with kaslr

Hi Borislav,

Do you think the following patch is good at present?
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
index 81f9d23..9213073 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
@@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ static void __init
memblock_x86_reserve_range_setup_data(void)
 # define CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX    (512 << 20)
 # define CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX   (512 << 20)
 #else
-# define CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX    (896UL << 20)
+# define CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX    (1 << 32)
 # define CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX   MAXMEM
 #endif

For documentation, I will send another patch to improve the description.

Thanks,
Pingfan

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 07:12:16PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > If we move to high as default, it will allocate 160M high + 256M low. It
>
> We won't move to high by default - we will *fall* back to high if the
> default allocation fails.
>
> > To make the process less fragile maybe we can remove the 896M limitation
> > and only try <4G then go to high.
>
> Sure, the more robust for the user, the better.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
>
> Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists