linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v20 3/5] arm64: kdump: reimplement crashkernel=X

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, 11 Feb 2022 18:30:34 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        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>,
        John Donnelly <John.p.donnelly@...cle.com>,
        Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 3/5] arm64: kdump: reimplement crashkernel=X

On 01/24/22 at 04:47pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
> From: Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@...wei.com>
......
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> index 6c653a2c7cff052..a5d43feac0d7d96 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> @@ -71,6 +71,30 @@ phys_addr_t arm64_dma_phys_limit __ro_after_init;
>  #define CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX	arm64_dma_phys_limit
>  #define CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX	MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE
>  
> +static int __init reserve_crashkernel_low(unsigned long long low_size)
> +{
> +	unsigned long long low_base;
> +
> +	/* passed with crashkernel=0,low ? */
> +	if (!low_size)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	low_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(low_size, CRASH_ALIGN, 0, CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX);
> +	if (!low_base) {
> +		pr_err("cannot allocate crashkernel low memory (size:0x%llx).\n", low_size);
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +	}
> +
> +	pr_info("crashkernel low memory reserved: 0x%llx - 0x%llx (%lld MB)\n",
> +		low_base, low_base + low_size, low_size >> 20);
> +
> +	crashk_low_res.start = low_base;
> +	crashk_low_res.end   = low_base + low_size - 1;
> +	insert_resource(&iomem_resource, &crashk_low_res);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * reserve_crashkernel() - reserves memory for crash kernel
>   *
> @@ -81,29 +105,62 @@ phys_addr_t arm64_dma_phys_limit __ro_after_init;
>  static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>  {
>  	unsigned long long crash_base, crash_size;
> +	unsigned long long crash_low_size = SZ_256M;
>  	unsigned long long crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX;
>  	int ret;
> +	bool fixed_base;
> +	char *cmdline = boot_command_line;
>  
> -	ret = parse_crashkernel(boot_command_line, memblock_phys_mem_size(),
> +	/* crashkernel=X[@offset] */
> +	ret = parse_crashkernel(cmdline, memblock_phys_mem_size(),
>  				&crash_size, &crash_base);
> -	/* no crashkernel= or invalid value specified */
> -	if (ret || !crash_size)
> -		return;
> +	if (ret || !crash_size) {
> +		unsigned long long low_size;
>  
> +		/* crashkernel=X,high */
> +		ret = parse_crashkernel_high(cmdline, 0, &crash_size, &crash_base);
> +		if (ret || !crash_size)
> +			return;
> +
> +		/* crashkernel=X,low */
> +		ret = parse_crashkernel_low(cmdline, 0, &low_size, &crash_base);
> +		if (!ret)
> +			crash_low_size = low_size;

Here, the error case is not checked and handled. But it still gets
expeced result which is the default SZ_256M. Is this designed on
purpose?

> +
> +		crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX;
> +	}
> +
> +	fixed_base = !!crash_base;
>  	crash_size = PAGE_ALIGN(crash_size);
>  
>  	/* User specifies base address explicitly. */
>  	if (crash_base)
>  		crash_max = crash_base + crash_size;
>  
> +retry:
>  	crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN,
>  					       crash_base, crash_max);
>  	if (!crash_base) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Attempt to fully allocate low memory failed, fall back
> +		 * to high memory, the minimum required low memory will be
> +		 * reserved later.
> +		 */
> +		if (!fixed_base && (crash_max == CRASH_ADDR_LOW_MAX)) {
> +			crash_max = CRASH_ADDR_HIGH_MAX;
> +			goto retry;
> +		}
> +
>  		pr_warn("cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x%llx)\n",
>  			crash_size);
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (crash_base >= SZ_4G && reserve_crashkernel_low(crash_low_size)) {
> +		memblock_phys_free(crash_base, crash_size);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
>  	pr_info("crashkernel reserved: 0x%016llx - 0x%016llx (%lld MB)\n",
>  		crash_base, crash_base + crash_size, crash_size >> 20);
>  
> @@ -112,6 +169,9 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void)
>  	 * map. Inform kmemleak so that it won't try to access it.
>  	 */
>  	kmemleak_ignore_phys(crash_base);
> +	if (crashk_low_res.end)
> +		kmemleak_ignore_phys(crashk_low_res.start);
> +
>  	crashk_res.start = crash_base;
>  	crashk_res.end = crash_base + crash_size - 1;
>  	insert_resource(&iomem_resource, &crashk_res);
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>