linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/kdump: Fix 'kmem -s' reported an invalid freepointer when SME was active

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: <20191001074012.GK31919@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date:   Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:40:12 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, jgross@...e.com,
        dhowells@...hat.com, Thomas.Lendacky@....com,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/kdump: Fix 'kmem -s' reported an invalid freepointer
 when SME was active

On 09/30/19 at 05:14am, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com> writes:
> >> needs a little better description.  I know it is not a lot on modern
> >> systems but reserving an extra 1M of memory to avoid having to special
> >> case it later seems in need of calling out.
> >> 
> >> I have an old system around that I think that 640K is about 25% of
> >> memory.
> >
> > Understood. Basically 640K is wasted in this case. But we only do like
> > this in SME case, a condition checking is added. And system with SME is
> > pretty new model, it may not impact the old system.
> 
> The conditional really should be based on if we are reserving memory
> for a kdump kernel.  AKA if crash_kernel=XXX is specified on the kernel
> command line.
> 
> At which point I think it would be very reasonable to unconditionally
> reserve the low 640k, and make the whole thing a non-issue.  This would
> allow the kdump code to just not do anything special for any of the
> weird special case.
> 
> It isn't perfect because we need a page or so used in the first kernel
> for bootstrapping the secondary cpus, but that seems like the least of
> evils.  Especially as no one will DMA to that memory.
> 
> So please let's just change what memory we reserve when crash_kernel is
> specified.

Yes, makes sense, thanks for pointing it out.

> 
> >> How we interact with BIOS tables in the first 640k needs some
> >> explanation.  Both in the first kernel and in the crash kernel.
> >
> > Yes, totally agree.
> >
> > Those BIOS tables have been reserved as e820 reserved regions and will
> > be passed to kdump kernel for reusing. Memblock reserved 640K doesn't
> > mean it will cover the whole [0, 640K) region, it only searches for
> > available system RAM from memblock allocator.
> 
> Careful with that assumption.  My memory is that the e820 memory map
> frequently fails to cover areas like the real mode interrupt descriptor
> table at address 0.

OK, will think more about this. Thanks.