linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] panic, kexec: Make __crash

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:   Sun, 26 Jun 2022 18:37:24 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Juri Lelli <jlelli@...hat.com>,
        "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] panic, kexec: Make __crash_kexec() NMI safe

On 06/24/22 at 02:37pm, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 24/06/22 09:30, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 06/20/22 at 12:15pm, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> @@ -94,14 +94,20 @@ static int do_kexec_load(unsigned long entry, unsigned long nr_segments,
> >>  	/*
> >>  	 * Because we write directly to the reserved memory region when loading
> >>  	 * crash kernels we need a mutex here to prevent multiple crash kernels
> >> -	 * from attempting to load simultaneously, and to prevent a crash kernel
> >> -	 * from loading over the top of a in use crash kernel.
> >> -	 *
> >> -	 * KISS: always take the mutex.
> >> +	 * from attempting to load simultaneously.
> >>  	 */
> >>  	if (!mutex_trylock(&kexec_mutex))
> >>  		return -EBUSY;
> >
> > So kexec_mutex is degenerated to only avoid simultaneous loading,
> > should we rename to reflect that?, e.g kexec_load_mutex.
> >
> 
> It's also serializing crash_get_memory_size() and crash_shrink_memory();
> more generally it should still be the preferred serialization mechanism as
> it's a "proper" lock visible by instrumentation, the atomic variable is a
> side character for the NMI case.

You are right. I only checked the code comment in this place. Then this
patch looks good to me, thx.

Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>