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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d2b199b7-584e-8ad4-9626-09bb86cf92c5@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Dec 2021 10:51:04 +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 22:48, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:08:30PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> No, this is actually wrong - that check *must* be 4G. See:
> 
>   eb6db83d1059 ("x86/setup: Do not reserve crashkernel high memory if low reservation failed")
> 
> It is even documented:
> 
>         crashkernel=size[KMG],low
>                         [KNL, X86-64] range under 4G. When crashkernel=X,high

[KNL, X86-64], This doc is for X86-64, not for X86-32

>                         is passed, kernel could allocate physical memory region
>                         above 4G, that cause second kernel crash on system
>                         that require some amount of low memory, e.g. swiotlb
>                         requires at least 64M+32K low memory, also enough extra
>                         low memory is needed to make sure DMA buffers for 32-bit
>                         devices won't run out.

vi arch/x86/kernel/setup.c +398

/*
 * Keep the crash kernel below this limit.
 *
 * Earlier 32-bits kernels would limit the kernel to the low 512 MB range
 * due to mapping restrictions.

If there is no such restriction, we can make CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX equal to (1ULL << 32) minus 1 on X86_32.

> 
> so you need to do a low allocation for DMA *when* the reserved memory is
> above 4G. *NOT* above 512M. But that works due to the obscure situation,
> as Baoquan stated, that reserve_crashkernel_low() returns 0 on 32-bit.
> 
> So all this is telling us is that that function needs serious cleanup.
>