linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 7/7] x86/crash: Add x86 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: <ca43bd5f-8a74-9412-3d4b-52c7d5e54978@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:26:58 -0500
From:   Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@...cle.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, david@...hat.com,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
        nramas@...ux.microsoft.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        robh@...nel.org, efault@....de, rppt@...nel.org,
        sourabhjain@...ux.ibm.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 7/7] x86/crash: Add x86 crash hotplug support



On 10/28/22 12:06, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 10:29:45AM -0500, Eric DeVolder wrote:
>> So it is with this in mind that I suggest we stay with the statically sized elfcorehdr buffer.
>>
>> If that can be agreed upon, then it is "just a matter" of picking a useful
>> elfcorehdr size. Currently that size is derived from the NR_DEFAULT_CPUS and
>> CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES. So, there is still the CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES knob
>> to help a dial in size, should there be some issue with the default
>> value/size.
> 
> Let's see
> 
>          kbuf.memsz =
>                  (CONFIG_NR_CPUS_DEFAULT + CONFIG_CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES) *
>                          sizeof(Elf64_Phdr);
> 
> which, IINM, is
> 
> 	(8192 + 32768) * 56
> 
> which is something like 2M.
> 
> (CONFIG_NR_CPUS_DEFAULT = 8192 - this is because of MAXSMP which gets
> set on distro kernels)
> 
> Now, since userspace kexec tools uses 2048 for max memory ranges, that
> size becomes smaller - around half a Mb. And since y'all wanna be on the
> safe side, you can quadruple it and have
> 
> 	(8192 + 8192) * 56
> 
> which is still under a megabyte. And that's fine, I guess, on a big
> server.

Excellent, I'll set CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES to 8192! That seems a quite fair trade off of elfcorehdr 
size vs system size (ie 1TiB w/ 128MiB memblock size).

> 
>> Or if there is desire to drop computing the size from NR_DEFAULT_CPUs and
> 
> I think you should leave the dependency on the Kconfig size so that
> smaller machines which are configured this way, don't end up wasting
> unnecessary memory.

Excellent, I'll leave the computation as NR_DEFAULT_CPUS + CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES.

> 
>> It is my intention to correct the CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES (if we keep it) as such:
>>
>> config CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES
>>      depends on CRASH_DUMP && KEXEC_FILE && MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> 
> Yes, but don't leave it to the user to decide what number to choose
> - choose a high enough number, explain why you've chosen this with a
> comment and that's it.

I currently have the Kconfig item as:

config CRASH_MAX_MEMORY_RANGES
     depends on CRASH_DUMP && KEXEC_FILE && MEMORY_HOTPLUG
     int
     default 8192
     help
       For the kexec_file_load path, specify the maximum number of
       memory regions, eg. as represented by the 'System RAM' entries
       in /proc/iomem, that the elfcorehdr buffer/segment can accommodate.
       This value is combined with NR_CPUS and multiplied by Elf64_Phdr
       size to determine the final buffer size.

I'll work to provide information a better explanation as to the 8192 number.

Thank you!
eric

> 
> Thx.
>