Message-ID: <2020bbf9-67b2-52e8-756f-b595414b4c02@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:14:43 +0800
From:   lijiang <lijiang@...hat.com>
To:     "d.hatayama@...itsu.com" <d.hatayama@...itsu.com>,
        Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>,
        "Thomas.Lendacky@....com" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
        "bhe@...hat.com" <bhe@...hat.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "dyoung@...hat.com" <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        "vgoyal@...hat.com" <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v5] x86/kdump: always reserve the low 1MiB when the
 crashkernel option is specified

在 2019年10月25日 09:38, d.hatayama@...itsu.com 写道:> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lijiang [mailto:lijiang@...hat.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 10:31 AM
>> To: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>; Hatayama, Daisuke/畑山 大輔
>> <d.hatayama@...itsu.com>
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; jgross@...e.com; Thomas.Lendacky@....com;
>> bhe@...hat.com; x86@...nel.org; kexec@...ts.infradead.org;
>> dhowells@...hat.com; mingo@...hat.com; bp@...en8.de; ebiederm@...ssion.com;
>> hpa@...or.com; tglx@...utronix.de; dyoung@...hat.com; vgoyal@...hat.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v5] x86/kdump: always reserve the low 1MiB when the
>> crashkernel option is specified
>>
>> 在 2019年10月24日 19:33, lijiang 写道:
>>> 在 2019年10月24日 18:07, Simon Horman 写道:
>>>> Hi Linbo,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for your patch.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:19:11PM +0800, Lianbo Jiang wrote:
>>>>> Kdump kernel will reuse the first 640k region because the real mode
>>>>> trampoline has to work in this area. When the vmcore is dumped, the
>>>>> old memory in this area may be accessed, therefore, kernel has to
>>>>> copy the contents of the first 640k area to a backup region so that
>>>>> kdump kernel can read the old memory from the backup area of the
>>>>> first 640k area, which is done in the purgatory().
>>>>>
>>>>> But, the current handling of copying the first 640k area runs into
>>>>> problems when SME is enabled, kernel does not properly copy these
>>>>> old memory to the backup area in the purgatory(), thereby, kdump
>>>>> kernel reads out the encrypted contents, because the kdump kernel
>>>>> must access the first kernel's memory with the encryption bit set
>>>>> when SME is enabled in the first kernel. Please refer to this link:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204793
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, it causes the following errors, and the crash tool gets
>>>>> invalid pointers when parsing the vmcore.
>>>>>
>>>>> crash> kmem -s|grep -i invalid
>>>>> kmem: dma-kmalloc-512: slab:ffffd77680001c00 invalid
>> freepointer:a6086ac099f0c5a4
>>>>> kmem: dma-kmalloc-512: slab:ffffd77680001c00 invalid
>> freepointer:a6086ac099f0c5a4
>>>>> crash>
>>>>>
>>>>> To avoid the above errors, when the crashkernel option is specified,
>>>>> lets reserve the remaining low 1MiB memory(after reserving real mode
>>>>> memory) so that the allocated memory does not fall into the low 1MiB
>>>>> area, which makes us not to copy the first 640k content to a backup
>>>>> region in purgatory(). This indicates that it does not need to be
>>>>> included in crash dumps or used for anything except the processor
>>>>> trampolines that must live in the low 1MiB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@...hat.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> BTW:I also tried to fix the above problem in purgatory(), but there
>>>>> are too many restricts in purgatory() context, for example: i can't
>>>>> allocate new memory to create the identity mapping page table for
>>>>> SME situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, there are two places where the first 640k area is needed,
>>>>> the first one is in the find_trampoline_placement(), another one is
>>>>> in the reserve_real_mode(), and their content doesn't matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, also need to clean all the code related to the backup
>>>>> region later.
>>>>>
>>>>>  arch/x86/realmode/init.c |  2 ++
>>>>>  include/linux/kexec.h    |  2 ++
>>>>>  kernel/kexec_core.c      | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>>>  3 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/realmode/init.c b/arch/x86/realmode/init.c
>>>>> index 7dce39c8c034..064cc79a015d 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/realmode/init.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/realmode/init.c
>>>>> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>>>>>  #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>>  #include <linux/memblock.h>
>>>>>  #include <linux/mem_encrypt.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/kexec.h>
>>>>>
>>>>>  #include <asm/set_memory.h>
>>>>>  #include <asm/pgtable.h>
>>>>> @@ -34,6 +35,7 @@ void __init reserve_real_mode(void)
>>>>>
>>>>>  	memblock_reserve(mem, size);
>>>>>  	set_real_mode_mem(mem);
>>>>> +	kexec_reserve_low_1MiB();
>>>>>  }
>>>>>
>>>>>  static void __init setup_real_mode(void)
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/kexec.h b/include/linux/kexec.h
>>>>> index 1776eb2e43a4..30acf1d738bc 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/kexec.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/kexec.h
>>>>> @@ -306,6 +306,7 @@ extern void __crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *);
>>>>>  extern void crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *);
>>>>>  int kexec_should_crash(struct task_struct *);
>>>>>  int kexec_crash_loaded(void);
>>>>> +void __init kexec_reserve_low_1MiB(void);
>>>>>  void crash_save_cpu(struct pt_regs *regs, int cpu);
>>>>>  extern int kimage_crash_copy_vmcoreinfo(struct kimage *image);
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -397,6 +398,7 @@ static inline void __crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> { }
>>>>>  static inline void crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *regs) { }
>>>>>  static inline int kexec_should_crash(struct task_struct *p) { return 0; }
>>>>>  static inline int kexec_crash_loaded(void) { return 0; }
>>>>> +static inline void __init kexec_reserve_low_1MiB(void) { }
>>>>>  #define kexec_in_progress false
>>>>>  #endif /* CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE */
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
>>>>> index 15d70a90b50d..5bd89f1fee42 100644
>>>>> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
>>>>> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
>>>>> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
>>>>>  #include <linux/compiler.h>
>>>>>  #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
>>>>>  #include <linux/frame.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/memblock.h>
>>>>>
>>>>>  #include <asm/page.h>
>>>>>  #include <asm/sections.h>
>>>>> @@ -70,6 +71,18 @@ struct resource crashk_low_res = {
>>>>>  	.desc  = IORES_DESC_CRASH_KERNEL
>>>>>  };
>>>>>
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * When the crashkernel option is specified, only use the low
>>>>> + * 1MiB for the real mode trampoline.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +void __init kexec_reserve_low_1MiB(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	if (strstr(boot_command_line, "crashkernel=")) {
>>>>
>>>> Could you comment on the issue of using strstr which
>>>> was raised by Hatayama-san in response to an earlier revision
>>>> of this patch?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you, Simon and Hatayama-san. Lets talk about it here.
>>>
>>>> strstr() matches for example,
>> ANYEXTRACHARACTERScrashkernel=ANYEXTRACHARACTERS.
>>>>
>>>> Is it enough to use cmdline_find_option_bool()?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The cmdline_find_option_bool() will find a boolean option, but the
>> crashkernel option
>>> is not a boolean option, maybe it looks odd. So, should we use the
>> cmdline_find_option()
>>> better?
>>>
>>> +#include <asm/cmdline.h>
>>>
>>>  void __init kexec_reserve_low_1MiB(void)
>>>  {
>>> -       if (strstr(boot_command_line, "crashkernel=")) {
>>> +       char buffer[4];
>>> +
>>> +       if (cmdline_find_option(boot_command_line, "crashkernel=",
>>> +                               buffer, sizeof(buffer))) {
>> Maybe it is simpler as follow:
>>
>> +       if (cmdline_find_option(boot_command_line, "crashkernel=",
>> +                               NULL, 0)) {
>>
>> Any thoughts?
> 
> I wrote a test kernel module and it works as expected.
> 
Thank you, Hatayama. This is a very good test case.

> static int __init testmod_init(void)
> {
>         char cmdline1[] = "x y crashkernel z";
>         char cmdline2[] = "x y crashkernel=128M z";
> 
>         printk("\"1: %d\n",
>                cmdline_find_option_bool(cmdline1, "crashkernel"));
>         printk("\"2: %d\n",
>                cmdline_find_option_bool(cmdline1, "crashkernel="));
>         printk("\"3: %d\n",
>                cmdline_find_option_bool(cmdline2, "crashkernel"));
>         printk("\"4: %d\n",
>                cmdline_find_option_bool(cmdline2, "crashkernel="));
> 
>         printk("\"5: %d\n",
>                cmdline_find_option(cmdline1, "crashkernel", NULL, 0));
>         printk("\"6: %d\n",
>                cmdline_find_option(cmdline1, "crashkernel=", NULL, 0));
>         printk("\"7: %d\n",
>                cmdline_find_option(cmdline2, "crashkernel", NULL, 0));
>         printk("\"8: %d\n",
>                cmdline_find_option(cmdline2, "crashkernel=", NULL, 0));
> 
>         return 0;
> }
> 
> # dmesg | tail
> [85335.355459] "7: 4
> [85335.356923] "8: -1
> [85349.763849] "1: 5
> [85349.765128] "2: 0
> [85349.766159] "3: 0
> [85349.767145] "4: 0
> [85349.768157] "5: -1
> [85349.769259] "6: -1
> [85349.770423] "7: 4
> [85349.771512] "8: -1
> 
 * Returns the length of the argument (regardless of if it was
 * truncated to fit in the buffer), or -1 on not found.
 */
static int
__cmdline_find_option(const char *cmdline, int max_cmdline_size,
                      const char *option, char *buffer, int bufsize)


According to the above code comment, it should be better like this:

+       if (cmdline_find_option(boot_command_line, "crashkernel",
+                               NULL, 0) > 0) {

After i test, i will post again.

Thanks.
Lianbo

>>
>> Thanks
>> Lianbo
>>>                 memblock_reserve(0, 1<<20);
>>>                 pr_info("Reserving the low 1MiB of memory for
>> crashkernel\n");
>>>         }
>>>
>>> And here, no need to parse the arguments of crashkernel(sometimes, which has
>> a
>>> complicated syntax), so the size of buffer should be enough. What's your
>> opinion?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Lianbo
>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>>
>>>>> +		memblock_reserve(0, 1<<20);
>>>>> +		pr_info("Reserving the low 1MiB of memory for
>> crashkernel\n");
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>  int kexec_should_crash(struct task_struct *p)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  	/*
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.17.1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> kexec mailing list
>>>>> kexec@...ts.infradead.org
>>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
>>>>>
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists