linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 021/191] powerpc/crashkernel: Take "mem=" option into account

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: <20200629154007.2495120-22-sashal@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:37:17 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>,
        Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 021/191] powerpc/crashkernel: Take "mem=" option into account

From: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>

[ Upstream commit be5470e0c285a68dc3afdea965032f5ddc8269d7 ]

'mem=" option is an easy way to put high pressure on memory during
some test. Hence after applying the memory limit, instead of total
mem, the actual usable memory should be considered when reserving mem
for crashkernel. Otherwise the boot up may experience OOM issue.

E.g. it would reserve 4G prior to the change and 512M afterward, if
passing
crashkernel="2G-4G:384M,4G-16G:512M,16G-64G:1G,64G-128G:2G,128G-:4G",
and mem=5G on a 256G machine.

This issue is powerpc specific because it puts higher priority on
fadump and kdump reservation than on "mem=". Referring the following
code:
    if (fadump_reserve_mem() == 0)
            reserve_crashkernel();
    ...
    /* Ensure that total memory size is page-aligned. */
    limit = ALIGN(memory_limit ?: memblock_phys_mem_size(), PAGE_SIZE);
    memblock_enforce_memory_limit(limit);

While on other arches, the effect of "mem=" takes a higher priority
and pass through memblock_phys_mem_size() before calling
reserve_crashkernel().

Signed-off-by: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1585749644-4148-1-git-send-email-kernelfans@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec.c | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec.c
index 9dafd7af39b8f..cb4d6cd949fc4 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec.c
@@ -113,11 +113,12 @@ void machine_kexec(struct kimage *image)
 
 void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
 {
-	unsigned long long crash_size, crash_base;
+	unsigned long long crash_size, crash_base, total_mem_sz;
 	int ret;
 
+	total_mem_sz = memory_limit ? memory_limit : memblock_phys_mem_size();
 	/* use common parsing */
-	ret = parse_crashkernel(boot_command_line, memblock_phys_mem_size(),
+	ret = parse_crashkernel(boot_command_line, total_mem_sz,
 			&crash_size, &crash_base);
 	if (ret == 0 && crash_size > 0) {
 		crashk_res.start = crash_base;
@@ -176,6 +177,7 @@ void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
 	/* Crash kernel trumps memory limit */
 	if (memory_limit && memory_limit <= crashk_res.end) {
 		memory_limit = crashk_res.end + 1;
+		total_mem_sz = memory_limit;
 		printk("Adjusted memory limit for crashkernel, now 0x%llx\n",
 		       memory_limit);
 	}
@@ -184,7 +186,7 @@ void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
 			"for crashkernel (System RAM: %ldMB)\n",
 			(unsigned long)(crash_size >> 20),
 			(unsigned long)(crashk_res.start >> 20),
-			(unsigned long)(memblock_phys_mem_size() >> 20));
+			(unsigned long)(total_mem_sz >> 20));
 
 	if (!memblock_is_region_memory(crashk_res.start, crash_size) ||
 	    memblock_reserve(crashk_res.start, crash_size)) {
-- 
2.25.1