| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <YwhNhrlmFH6ps3BN@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 12:35:18 +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,
sourabhjain@...ux.ibm.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 8/8] x86/crash: Add x86 crash hotplug support
On 08/16/22 at 10:23am, Eric DeVolder wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/22 19:34, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 07/21/22 at 02:17pm, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> > ...snip....
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > index e58798f636d4..bb59596c8bea 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > @@ -2065,6 +2065,17 @@ config CRASH_DUMP
> > > (CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y).
> > > For more details see Documentation/admin-guide/kdump/kdump.rst
> > > +config CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES
> > > + depends on CRASH_DUMP && KEXEC_FILE && (HOTPLUG_CPU || MEMORY_HOTPLUG)
> > > + int
> > > + default 32768
> >
> > Do we need to enforce the value with page align and minimal size? I
>
> Are you asking about the value CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES? This value represents
> the maximum number of memory ranges, and there Elf64_Phdrs, that we need to
> allow for elfcorehdr memory. So I'm not sure what the concern for alignment
> is. I suppose we could also institute a minimum size for this value, say 1024.
>
> > checked crash_load_segments() in arch/x86/kernel/crash.c, it does the
> > page size aligning in kexec_add_buffer(). And in
> > load_crashdump_segments() of
> > kexec-tools/kexec/arch/i386/crashdump-x86.c, it creates elfcorehdr at
> > below code, the align is 1024, and in generic add_buffer()
> > implementation, it enforces the memsz page aligned, and changes the
> > passed align as page alignment.
> >
> >
> > elfcorehdr = add_buffer(info, tmp, bufsz, memsz, align, min_base,
> > max_addr, -1);
> >
> > Maybe we should at least mention this in the help text to notice people.
>
> Unfortunately I do not yet understand the concern being raised.
Oops, never mind, I misunderstood CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES. Thought it's
the range vlaue of buffer containing elfcorehdr, I must be dizzy when
reading this part.
>
> >
...snip...
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c b/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
> > > index 9ceb93c176a6..55dda4fcde6e 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
> > > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> > > #include <linux/memblock.h>
> > > +#include <linux/highmem.h>
> > > #include <asm/processor.h>
> > > #include <asm/hardirq.h>
> > > @@ -397,7 +398,17 @@ int crash_load_segments(struct kimage *image)
> > > image->elf_headers = kbuf.buffer;
> > > image->elf_headers_sz = kbuf.bufsz;
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG)
> > > + /* Ensure elfcorehdr segment large enough for hotplug changes */
> > > + kbuf.memsz = (CONFIG_NR_CPUS_DEFAULT + CONFIG_CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES) * sizeof(Elf64_Phdr);
> >
> > Do we need to break the line to 80 chars?
>
> Sure, I will do so.
>
> >
> > > + /* For marking as usable to crash kernel */
> > > + image->elf_headers_sz = kbuf.memsz;
> >
> > Do we need this code comment?
>
> Well, it did take me a while to figure this particular item out in order for all
> this code to work right (else the crash kernel would fail at boot time). So I
> think it best to keep this comment.
>
> >
> > > + /* Record the index of the elfcorehdr segment */
> > > + image->elfcorehdr_index = image->nr_segments;
> >
> > And this place?
>
> Not necessarily needed, but I've found it useful.
>
> >
> > > + image->elfcorehdr_index_valid = true;
> > > +#else
> > > kbuf.memsz = kbuf.bufsz;
> > > +#endif
> > > kbuf.buf_align = ELF_CORE_HEADER_ALIGN;
> > > kbuf.mem = KEXEC_BUF_MEM_UNKNOWN;
> > > ret = kexec_add_buffer(&kbuf);
> > > @@ -412,3 +423,107 @@ int crash_load_segments(struct kimage *image)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE */
> > > +
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG)
> > > +void *arch_map_crash_pages(unsigned long paddr, unsigned long size)
> > > +{
> > > + /*
> > > + * NOTE: The addresses and sizes passed to this routine have
> > > + * already been fully aligned on page boundaries. There is no
> > > + * need for massaging the address or size.
> > > + */
> >
> > Can we move the code comment above function interface?
>
> Yes
>
> >
> > > + void *ptr = NULL;
> > > +
> > > + /* NOTE: requires arch_kexec_[un]protect_crashkres() for write access */
> >
> > Do we need this code comment? On ARCH where proctionion is made, we
> > surely need to the protect/unprotect.
>
> I will remove this; I've mentioned this in handle_hotplug_event() where these
> protect/unprotect functions are called.
>
> >
> > > + if (size > 0) {
> > > + struct page *page = pfn_to_page(paddr >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > +
> > > + ptr = kmap_local_page(page);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return ptr;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void arch_unmap_crash_pages(void **ptr)
> > > +{
> > > + if (ptr) {
> > > + if (*ptr)
> > > + kunmap_local(*ptr);
> > > + *ptr = NULL;
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event() - Handle hotplug elfcorehdr changes
> > > + * @image: the active struct kimage
> > > + * @hp_action: the hot un/plug action being handled
> > > + * @cpu: when KEXEC_CRASH_HP_ADD/REMOVE_CPU, the cpu affected
> > > + *
> > > + * To accurately reflect hot un/plug changes, the elfcorehdr (which
> > > + * is passed to the crash kernel via the elfcorehdr= parameter)
> > > + * must be updated with the new list of CPUs and memories. The new
> > > + * elfcorehdr is prepared in a kernel buffer, and then it is
> > > + * written on top of the existing/old elfcorehdr.
> > > + *
> > > + * For hotplug changes to elfcorehdr to work, two conditions are
> > > + * needed:
> > > + * First, the segment containing the elfcorehdr must be large enough
> > > + * to permit a growing number of resources. See the
> > > + * CONFIG_CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES description.
> > > + * Second, purgatory must explicitly exclude the elfcorehdr from the
> > > + * list of segments it checks (since the elfcorehdr changes and thus
> > > + * would require an update to purgatory itself to update the digest).
> >
> > Isn't this generic concept to crash hotplug? Should we move it out to
> > some generic place?
>
> Yes, so I will relocate this.
>
> >
> > > + *
> > > + */
> > > +void arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event(struct kimage *image,
> > > + unsigned int hp_action, unsigned int cpu)
> >
> > The passed in 'cpu' is not used at all, what is it added for? I didn't
> > see explanation about it.
>
> Well its not used for x86, but as I recall, Sourabh Jain needed it for the PowerPC handler.
Then better mention this in log or add code comment, otherwise confusion
could be caused.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists