linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 6/8] arm64: kdump: reimplement crashkernel=X

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: <20201112083645.GL8486@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date:   Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:36:45 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc:     chenzhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, dyoung@...hat.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will@...nel.org, corbet@....net, John.P.donnelly@...cle.com,
        bhsharma@...hat.com, prabhakar.pkin@...il.com,
        wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, xiexiuqi@...wei.com,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, horms@...ge.net.au, james.morse@....com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, huawei.libin@...wei.com,
        guohanjun@...wei.com, nsaenzjulienne@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 6/8] arm64: kdump: reimplement crashkernel=X

On 11/12/20 at 10:25am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 09:54:48PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 11/11/20 at 09:27pm, chenzhou wrote:
> > > Hi Baoquan,
> > ...
> > > >>  #ifdef CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP
> > > >>  static int __init early_init_dt_scan_elfcorehdr(unsigned long node,
> > > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > >> index 1c0f3e02f731..c55cee290bbb 100644
> > > >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > >> @@ -488,6 +488,10 @@ static void __init map_mem(pgd_t *pgdp)
> > > >>  	 */
> > > >>  	memblock_mark_nomap(kernel_start, kernel_end - kernel_start);
> > > >>  #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE
> > > >> +	if (crashk_low_res.end)
> > > >> +		memblock_mark_nomap(crashk_low_res.start,
> > > >> +				    resource_size(&crashk_low_res));
> > > >> +
> > > >>  	if (crashk_res.end)
> > > >>  		memblock_mark_nomap(crashk_res.start,
> > > >>  				    resource_size(&crashk_res));
> > > >> diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c
> > > >> index d39892bdb9ae..cdef7d8c91a6 100644
> > > >> --- a/kernel/crash_core.c
> > > >> +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c
> > > >> @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ int __init parse_crashkernel_low(char *cmdline,
> > > >>  
> > > >>  int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
> > > >>  {
> > > >> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > >> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) || defined(CONFIG_ARM64)
> > > > Not very sure if a CONFIG_64BIT checking is better.
> > > If doing like this, there may be some compiling errors for other 64-bit kernel, such as mips.
> > > >
> > > >>  	unsigned long long base, low_base = 0, low_size = 0;
> > > >>  	unsigned long low_mem_limit;
> > > >>  	int ret;
> > > >> @@ -362,12 +362,14 @@ int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(void)
> > > >>  
> > > >>  	crashk_low_res.start = low_base;
> > > >>  	crashk_low_res.end   = low_base + low_size - 1;
> > > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > >>  	insert_resource(&iomem_resource, &crashk_low_res);
> > > >> +#endif
> > > >>  #endif
> > > >>  	return 0;
> > > >>  }
> > > >>  
> > > >> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86
> > > >> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86) || defined(CONFIG_ARM64)
> > > > Should we make this weak default so that we can remove the ARCH config?
> > > The same as above, some arch may not support kdump, in that case,  compiling errors occur.
> > 
> > OK, not sure if other people have better idea, oterwise, we can leave with it. 
> > Thanks for telling.
> 
> I think it would be better to have CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_RESERVE_CRASH_KERNEL
> in arch/Kconfig and select this by X86 and ARM64.
> 
> Since reserve_crashkernel() implementations are quite similart on other
> architectures as well, we can have more users of this later.

Yes, this sounds like a nice way.