linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] kdump: Add support for crashkernel=auto

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]

Date:   Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:20:30 +0800
From:   Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
To:     Petr Tesařík <ptesarik@...e.cz>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kdump: Add support for crashkernel=auto



On 01/27/2022 11:53 PM, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> Hi Tiezhu Yang,
>
> I'm afraid the whole concept is broken by design. See below.
>
> Dne 27. 01. 22 v 10:31 Tiezhu Yang napsal(a):
>> Set the reserved memory automatically for the crash kernel based on
>> architecture.
>>
>> Most code of this patch come from:
>> https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/src/kernel/centos-stream-8/-/tree/c8s
>>
>
> And that's the problem, I think. The solution might be good for this
> specific OS, but not for others.

Hi Petr,

Thank you for your reply.

This is a RFC patch, the initial aim of this patch is to discuss what is 
the proper way to support crashkernel=auto.

A moment ago, I find the following patch, it is more flexible, but it is 
not merged into the upstream kernel now.

kernel/crash_core: Add crashkernel=auto for vmcore creation

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210223174153.72802-1-saeed.mirzamohammadi@oracle.com/

>
>> [...]
>> diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c
>> index 256cf6d..32c51e2 100644
>> --- a/kernel/crash_core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c
>> @@ -252,6 +252,26 @@ static int __init __parse_crashkernel(char *cmdline,
>>       if (suffix)
>>           return parse_crashkernel_suffix(ck_cmdline, crash_size,
>>                   suffix);
>> +
>> +    if (strncmp(ck_cmdline, "auto", 4) == 0) {
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) || defined(CONFIG_S390)
>> +        ck_cmdline = "1G-4G:160M,4G-64G:192M,64G-1T:256M,1T-:512M";
>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_ARM64)
>> +        ck_cmdline = "2G-:448M";
>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_PPC64)
>> +        char *fadump_cmdline;
>> +
>> +        fadump_cmdline = get_last_crashkernel(cmdline, "fadump=", NULL);
>> +        fadump_cmdline = fadump_cmdline ?
>> +                fadump_cmdline + strlen("fadump=") : NULL;
>> +        if (!fadump_cmdline || (strncmp(fadump_cmdline, "off", 3) == 0))
>> +            ck_cmdline =
>> "2G-4G:384M,4G-16G:512M,16G-64G:1G,64G-128G:2G,128G-:4G";
>> +        else
>> +            ck_cmdline =
>> "4G-16G:768M,16G-64G:1G,64G-128G:2G,128G-1T:4G,1T-2T:6G,2T-4T:12G,4T-8T:20G,8T-16T:36G,16T-32T:64G,32T-64T:128G,64T-:180G";
>>
>> +#endif
>> +        pr_info("Using crashkernel=auto, the size chosen is a best
>> effort estimation.\n");
>> +    }
>> +
>
> How did you even arrive at the above numbers?

Memory requirements for kdump:

https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html/managing_monitoring_and_updating_the_kernel/supported-kdump-configurations-and-targets_managing-monitoring-and-updating-the-kernel#memory-requirements-for-kdump_supported-kdump-configurations-and-targets

I've done some research on
> this topic recently (ie. during the last 7 years or so). My x86_64
> system with 8G RAM running openSUSE Leap 15.3 seems needs 188M for
> saving to the local disk, and 203M to save over the network (using
> SFTP). My PPC64 LPAR with 16G RAM running latest Beta of SLES 15 SP4
> needs 587M, i.e. with the above numbers it may run out of memory while
> saving the dump.
>
> Since this is not the first time, I'm trying to explain things, I've
> written a blog post now:
>
> https://sigillatum.tesarici.cz/2022-01-27-whats-wrong-with-crashkernel-auto.html
>

Thank you, this is useful.

Thanks,
Tiezhu

>
> HTH
> Petr Tesarik