linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 0/9] support reserving crashkernel above 4G on 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 10:43:05 +0800
From:   chenzhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com>
To:     Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC:     John Donnelly <john.p.donnelly@...cle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, RuiRui Yang <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar.pkin@...il.com>,
        Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kexec mailing list <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <guohanjun@...wei.com>, <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>,
        <huawei.libin@...wei.com>, <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/9] support reserving crashkernel above 4G on arm64
 kdump

Hi Bhupesh,


On 2020/10/7 15:07, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> Hi Catalin,
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:30 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:12:10PM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
>>> I think my earlier email with the test results on this series bounced
>>> off the mailing list server (for some weird reason), but I still see
>>> several issues with this patchset. I will add specific issues in the
>>> review comments for each patch again, but overall, with a crashkernel
>>> size of say 786M, I see the following issue:
>>>
>>> # cat /proc/cmdline
>>> BOOT_IMAGE=(hd7,gpt2)/vmlinuz-5.9.0-rc7+ root=<..snip..> rd.lvm.lv=<..snip..> crashkernel=786M
>>>
>>> I see two regions of size 786M and 256M reserved in low and high
>>> regions respectively, So we reserve a total of 1042M of memory, which
>>> is an incorrect behaviour:
>>>
>>> # dmesg | grep -i crash
>>> [    0.000000] Reserving 256MB of low memory at 2816MB for crashkernel (System low RAM: 768MB)
>>> [    0.000000] Reserving 786MB of memory at 654158MB for crashkernel (System RAM: 130816MB)
>>> [    0.000000] Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGE=(hd2,gpt2)/vmlinuz-5.9.0-rc7+ root=/dev/mapper/rhel_ampere--hr330a--03-root ro rd.lvm.lv=rhel_ampere-hr330a-03/root rd.lvm.lv=rhel_ampere-hr330a-03/swap crashkernel=786M cma=1024M
>>>
>>> # cat /proc/iomem | grep -i crash
>>>   b0000000-bfffffff : Crash kernel (low)
>>>   bfcbe00000-bffcffffff : Crash kernel
>> As Chen said, that's the intended behaviour and how x86 works. The
>> requested 768M goes in the high range if there's not enough low memory
>> and an additional buffer for swiotlb is allocated, hence the low 256M.
> I understand, but why 256M (as low) for arm64? x86_64 setups usually
> have more system memory available as compared to several commercially
> available arm64 setups. So is the intent, just to keep the behavior
> similar between arm64 and x86_64?
>
> Should we have a CONFIG option / bootarg to help one select the max
> 'low_size'? Currently the ' low_size' value is calculated as:
>
>     /*
>          * two parts from kernel/dma/swiotlb.c:
>          * -swiotlb size: user-specified with swiotlb= or default.
>          *
>          * -swiotlb overflow buffer: now hardcoded to 32k. We round it
>          * to 8M for other buffers that may need to stay low too. Also
>          * make sure we allocate enough extra low memory so that we
>          * don't run out of DMA buffers for 32-bit devices.
>          */
>         low_size = max(swiotlb_size_or_default() + (8UL << 20), 256UL << 20);
>
> Since many arm64 boards ship with swiotlb=0 (turned off) via kernel
> bootargs, the low_size, still ends up being 256M in such cases,
> whereas this 256M can be used for some other purposes - so should we
> be limiting this to 64M and failing the crash kernel allocation
> request (gracefully) otherwise?
>
>> We could (as an additional patch), subtract the 256M from the high
>> allocation so that you'd get a low 256M and a high 512M, not sure it's
>> worth it. Note that with a "crashkernel=768M,high" option, you still get
>> the additional low 256M, otherwise the crashkernel won't be able to
>> boot as there's no memory in ZONE_DMA. In the explicit ",high" request
>> case, I'm not sure subtracted the 256M is more intuitive.
>> In 5.11, we also hope to fix the ZONE_DMA layout for non-RPi4 platforms
>> to cover the entire 32-bit address space (i.e. identical to the current
>> ZONE_DMA32).
>>
>>> IMO, we should test this feature more before including this in 5.11
>> Definitely. That's one of the reasons we haven't queued it yet. So any
>> help with testing here is appreciated.
> Sure, I am running more checks on this series. I will be soon back
> with more updates.

Sorry to bother you. I am looking forward to your review comments.


Thanks,
Chen Zhou
>
> Regards,
> Bhupesh
>
> .
>