linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v14 01/11] x86: kdump: replace the hard-coded alignment with macro CRASH

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: <20210302074327.GC13714@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date:   Tue, 2 Mar 2021 15:43:27 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        chenzhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, rppt@...nel.org, dyoung@...hat.com,
        will@...nel.org, nsaenzjulienne@...e.de, corbet@....net,
        John.P.donnelly@...cle.com, prabhakar.pkin@...il.com,
        horms@...ge.net.au, robh+dt@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
        james.morse@....com, xiexiuqi@...wei.com, guohanjun@...wei.com,
        huawei.libin@...wei.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 01/11] x86: kdump: replace the hard-coded alignment
 with macro CRASH_ALIGN

On 02/26/21 at 09:38am, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> chenzhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com> writes:
> 
> > On 2021/2/25 15:25, Baoquan He wrote:
> >> On 02/24/21 at 02:19pm, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 03:10:15PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote:
> >>>> Move CRASH_ALIGN to header asm/kexec.h for later use. Besides, the
> >>>> alignment of crash kernel regions in x86 is 16M(CRASH_ALIGN), but
> >>>> function reserve_crashkernel() also used 1M alignment. So just
> >>>> replace hard-coded alignment 1M with macro CRASH_ALIGN.
> >>> [...]
> >>>> @@ -510,7 +507,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
> >>>>  	} else {
> >>>>  		unsigned long long start;
> >>>>  
> >>>> -		start = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, SZ_1M, crash_base,
> >>>> +		start = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN, crash_base,
> >>>>  						  crash_base + crash_size);
> >>>>  		if (start != crash_base) {
> >>>>  			pr_info("crashkernel reservation failed - memory is in use.\n");
> >>> There is a small functional change here for x86. Prior to this patch,
> >>> crash_base passed by the user on the command line is allowed to be 1MB
> >>> aligned. With this patch, such reservation will fail.
> >>>
> >>> Is the current behaviour a bug in the current x86 code or it does allow
> >>> 1MB-aligned reservations?
> >> Hmm, you are right. Here we should keep 1MB alignment as is because
> >> users specify the address and size, their intention should be respected.
> >> The 1MB alignment for fixed memory region reservation was introduced in
> >> below commit, but it doesn't tell what is Eric's request at that time, I
> >> guess it meant respecting users' specifying.
> 
> 
> > I think we could make the alignment unified. Why is the alignment system reserved and
> > user specified different? Besides, there is no document about the 1MB alignment.
> > How about adding the alignment size(16MB) in doc  if user specified
> > start address as arm64 does.
> 
> Looking at what the code is doing.  Attempting to reserve a crash region
> at the location the user specified.  Adding unnecessary alignment
> constraints is totally broken. 
> 
> I am not even certain enforcing a 1MB alignment makes sense.  I suspect
> it was added so that we don't accidentally reserve low memory on x86.
> Frankly I am not even certain that makes sense.
> 
> Now in practice there might be an argument for 2MB alignment that goes
> with huge page sizes on x86.  But until someone finds that there are
> actual problems with 1MB alignment I would not touch it.
> 
> The proper response to something that isn't documented and confusing is
> not to arbitrarily change it and risk breaking users.  Especially in
> this case where it is clear that adding additional alignment is total
> nonsense.  The proper response to something that isn't clear and
> documented is to dig in and document it, or to leave it alone and let it

Sounds reasonable. Then adding document or code comment around looks
like a good way to go further so that people can easily get why its
alignment is different than other reservation.

> be the next persons problem.
> 
> In this case there is no reason for changing this bit of code.
> All CRASH_ALIGN is about is a default alignment when none is specified.
> It is not a functional requirement but just something so that things
> come out nicely.
> 
> 
> Eric
>