linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/8] crash: add generic infrastructure for crash hotplug support

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: <YlY4SlF07iH08Qnj@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:41:14 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        dyoung@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        hpa@...or.com, nramas@...ux.microsoft.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        robh@...nel.org, efault@....de, rppt@...nel.org, david@...hat.com,
        konrad.wilk@...cle.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/8] crash: add generic infrastructure for crash
 hotplug support

On 04/11/22 at 08:54am, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/11/22 04:20, Baoquan He wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> > 
> > On 04/01/22 at 02:30pm, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> > ... ...
> > 
> > > +static void crash_hotplug_handler(unsigned int hp_action,
> > > +	unsigned long a, unsigned long b)
> > 
> > I am still struggling to consider if these unused parameters should be
> > kept or removed. Do you foresee or feel on which ARCH they could be used?
> > 
> > Considering our elfcorehdr updating method, once memory or cpu changed,
> > we will update elfcorehdr and cpu notes to reflect all existing memory
> > regions and cpu in the current system. We could end up with having them
> > but never being used. Then we may finally need to clean them up.
> > 
> > If you have investigated and foresee or feel they could be used on a
> > certain architecture, we can keep them for the time being.
> 
> So 'hp_action' and 'a' are used within the existing patch series.
> In crash_core.c, there is this bit of code:
> 
> +       kexec_crash_image->offlinecpu =
> +           (hp_action == KEXEC_CRASH_HP_REMOVE_CPU) ?
> +               (unsigned int)a : ~0U;
> 
> which is referencing both 'hp_action' and using 'a' from the cpu notifier handler.
> I looked into removing 'a' and setting offlinecpu directly, but I thought
> it better that offlinecpu be set within the safety of the kexec_mutex.
> Also, Sourabh Jain's work with PowerPC utilizing this framework directly
> references hp_action in the arch-specific handler.
> 
> The cpu and memory notifier handlers set hp_action accordingly. For cpu handler,
> the 'a' is set with the impacted cpu. For memory handler, 'a' and 'b' form the
> impacted memory range. I agree it looks like the memory range is currently
> not useful.

OK, memory handler doesn't need the action, memory regions. While cpu
handler needs it to exclude the hot plugged cpu.

We could have two ways to acheive this as below. How do you think about
them?

static void crash_hotplug_handler(unsigned int hp_action,
        unsigned long cpu)

static int crash_memhp_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
        unsigned long val, void *v)
{
......
        switch (val) {
        case MEM_ONLINE:
                crash_hotplug_handler(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_ADD_MEMORY,
                        -1UL);
                break;

        case MEM_OFFLINE:
                crash_hotplug_handler(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_REMOVE_MEMORY,
                        -1UL);
                break;
        }
        return NOTIFY_OK;
}

static int crash_cpuhp_online(unsigned int cpu)
{
        crash_hotplug_handler(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_ADD_CPU, cpu);
        return 0;
}

static int crash_cpuhp_offline(unsigned int cpu)
{
        crash_hotplug_handler(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_REMOVE_CPU, cpu);
        return 0;
}

OR,

static void crash_hotplug_handler(unsigned int hp_action,
        int* cpu)

static int crash_cpuhp_online(unsigned int cpu)
{
        crash_hotplug_handler(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_ADD_CPU, NULL);
        return 0;
}

static int crash_cpuhp_offline(unsigned int cpu)
{
	int dead_cpu = cpu;
        crash_hotplug_handler(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_REMOVE_CPU, &cpu);
        return 0;
}