linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 5/5] dt-bindings: chosen: Document linux,low-memory-range for arm64 kdump

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: <20200526211800.GA352001@bogus>
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 15:18:00 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     chenzhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, dyoung@...hat.com,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        John.p.donnelly@...cle.com, pkushwaha@...vell.com,
        Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/5] dt-bindings: chosen: Document
 linux,low-memory-range for arm64 kdump

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:24:11AM +0800, chenzhou wrote:
> Hi Rob,

+James M (It's nice to Cc folks if you mention/quote them)


> On 2020/5/21 21:29, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:35 AM Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com> wrote:
> >> Add documentation for DT property used by arm64 kdump:
> >> linux,low-memory-range.
> >> "linux,low-memory-range" is an another memory region used for crash
> >> dump kernel devices.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/chosen.txt | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
> > chosen is now a schema documented here[1].
> Ok, that is, i don't need to modify the doc in kernel, just create a pull request in github [1]?
> 
> >
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/chosen.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/chosen.txt
> >> index 45e79172a646..bfe6fb6976e6 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/chosen.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/chosen.txt
> >> @@ -103,6 +103,31 @@ While this property does not represent a real hardware, the address
> >>  and the size are expressed in #address-cells and #size-cells,
> >>  respectively, of the root node.
> >>
> >> +linux,low-memory-range
> >> +----------------------
> >> +This property (arm64 only) holds a base address and size, describing a
> >> +limited region below 4G. Similar to "linux,usable-memory-range", it is
> >> +an another memory range which may be considered available for use by the
> >> +kernel.
> > Why can't you just add a range to "linux,usable-memory-range"? It
> > shouldn't be hard to figure out which part is below 4G.
> I did like this in my previous version, such as v5. After discussed with James, i modified it to the current way.
> 
> We think the existing behavior should be unchanged, which helps with keeping compatibility with existing
> user-space and older kdump kernels.
> 
> The comments from James:
> > linux,usable-memory-range = <BASE1 SIZE1 [BASE2 SIZE2]>.
> Won't this break if your kdump kernel doesn't know what the extra parameters are?
> Or if it expects two ranges, but only gets one? These DT properties should be treated as
> ABI between kernel versions, we can't really change it like this.
> 
> I think the 'low' region is an optional-extra, that is never mapped by the first kernel. I
> think the simplest thing to do is to add an 'linux,low-memory-range' that we
> memblock_add() after memblock_cap_memory_range() has been called.
> If its missing, or the new kernel doesn't know what its for, everything keeps working.


I don't think there's a compatibility issue here though. The current 
kernel doesn't care if the property is longer than 1 base+size. It only 
checks if the size is less than 1 base+size. And yes, we can rely on 
that implementation detail. It's only an ABI if an existing user 
notices.

Now, if the low memory is listed first, then an older kdump kernel 
would get a different memory range. If that's a problem, then define 
that low memory goes last. 

Rob