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: <9513d74c-d4c7-babd-f823-8999e195d96d@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:46:12 +0800
From:   "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     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 9:10, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 12/15/21 at 02:28pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 02:55:26PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>> @@ -518,7 +519,7 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>>>  		}
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>> -	if (crash_base >= (1ULL << 32) && reserve_crashkernel_low()) {
>>> +	if (crash_base >= CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX && reserve_crashkernel_low()) {
>>>  		memblock_phys_free(crash_base, crash_size);
>>>  		return;
>>>  	}
>>
>> That's not a equivalent transformation on X86_32.

The original value (1ULL << 32) is inaccurate, and it enlarged the CRASH_ADDR_LOW
upper limit. 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.

                if (!high)
                        crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size,
                                                CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ALIGN,
                                                CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
                if (!crash_base)
                        crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size,
                                                CRASH_ALIGN, CRASH_ALIGN,
                                                CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX);

> 
> reserve_crashkernel_low() always return 0 on x86_32, so the not equivalent
> transformation for x86_32 doesn't matter, I think.
> 
> .
>