linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v17 03/10] x86: kdump: use macro CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX in functions reserve

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: <20d765ff-59bb-7bb3-df06-9f02eada3cb0@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 20:23:31 +0800
From:   "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@...edance.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Chen Zhou <dingguo.cz@...group.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 03/10] x86: kdump: use macro CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX in
 functions reserve_crashkernel()



On 2021/12/16 20:08, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021/12/16 19:07, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:46:12AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>> The original value (1ULL << 32) is inaccurate
>>
>> I keep asking *why*?
>>
>>> and it enlarged the CRASH_ADDR_LOW upper limit.
>>
>> $ git grep -E "CRASH_ADDR_LOW\W"
>> $
>>
>> I have no clue what you mean here.
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> # define CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX     SZ_512M
> # define CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX    SZ_512M
> #endif
> 
> 		if (!high)
> (1)                     crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size,
>                                                 CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ALIGN,
>                                                 CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
>                 if (!crash_base)
> (2)                     crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size,
>                                                 CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ALIGN,
>                                                 CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX);
> 
> -	if (crash_base >= (1ULL << 32) && reserve_crashkernel_low())
> +(3)	if (crash_base >= CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX && reserve_crashkernel_low())
> 
> If the memory of 'crash_base' is successfully allocated at (1), because the last
> parameter CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX is the upper bound, so we can sure that
> "crash_base < CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX". So that, reserve_crashkernel_low() will not be
> invoked at (3). That's why I said (1ULL << 32) is inaccurate and enlarge the CRASH_ADDR_LOW
> upper limit.
> 
> If the memory of 'crash_base' is successfully allocated at (2), you see,
> CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX = SZ_512M, the same as (1). In fact,
> "crashkernel=high," may not be recommended on X86_32.
> 
> Is it possible that (CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX >= 4G) and (CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX < 4G)?
> In this case, the memory allocated at (2) maybe over 4G. But why shouldn't
> CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX be equal to 4G at this point?

We divide two memory areas: low memory area and high memory area. The doc told us:
at least 256MB memory should be reserved at low memory area. So that if
"crash_base >= CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX" is true at (3), that means we have not reserved
any memory at low memory area, so we should call reserve_crashkernel_low().
The low memory area is not equivalent to <=4G, I think. So replace (1ULL << 32) with
CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX is logically correct.

> 
> 
>>
>>> This is because when the memory is allocated from the low end, the
>>> address cannot exceed CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX, see "if (!high)" branch.
>>
>>> If
>>> the memory is allocated from the high end, 'crash_base' is greater than or
>>> equal to (1ULL << 32), and naturally, it is greater than CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX.
>>>
>>> I think I should update the description, thanks.
>>
>> I think you should explain why is (1ULL << 32) wrong.
>>
>> It came from:
>>
>>   eb6db83d1059 ("x86/setup: Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if low reservation failed")
>>
>> which simply frees the high memory portion when the low reservation
>> fails. And the test for that is, is crash base > 4G. So that makes
>> perfect sense to me.
>>
>> So your change is a NOP on 64-bit and it is a NOP on 32-bit by virtue of
>> the _low() variant always returning 0 on 32-bit.
>>