linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pstore/ram: Add support for dynamically allocated ramoops memory regions

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:   Wed, 21 Jun 2023 22:15:45 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Isaac J. Manjarres" <isaacmanjarres@...gle.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
        "Isaac J. Manjarres" <isaacm@...eaurora.org>,
        Mukesh Ojha <mojha@...eaurora.org>,
        Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...eaurora.org>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pstore/ram: Add support for dynamically allocated
 ramoops memory regions

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 09:47:26PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 5:52 PM 'Isaac J. Manjarres' via kernel-team
> <kernel-team@...roid.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: "Isaac J. Manjarres" <isaacm@...eaurora.org>
> >
> > The reserved memory region for ramoops is assumed to be at a fixed
> > and known location when read from the devicetree. This is not desirable
> > in environments where it is preferred for the region to be dynamically
> > allocated early during boot (i.e. the memory region is defined with
> > the "alloc-ranges" property instead of the "reg" property).
> >
> 
> Thanks for sending this out, Isaac!
> 
> Apologies, I've forgotten much of the details around dt bindings here,
> so forgive my questions:
> If the memory is dynamically allocated from a specific range, is it
> guaranteed to be consistently the same address boot to boot?
> 
> > Since ramoops regions are part of the reserved-memory devicetree
> > node, they exist in the reserved_mem array. This means that the
> > of_reserved_mem_lookup() function can be used to retrieve the
> > reserved_mem structure for the ramoops region, and that structure
> > contains the base and size of the region, even if it has been
> > dynamically allocated.
> 
> I think this is answering my question above, but it's a little opaque,
> so I'm not sure.

Yeah, I had exactly the same question: will this be the same
boot-to-boot?

> 
> > Thus invoke of_reserved_mem_lookup() in case the call to
> > platform_get_resource() fails in order to support dynamically
> > allocated ramoops memory regions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Isaac J. Manjarres <isaacm@...eaurora.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@...eaurora.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...eaurora.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Isaac J. Manjarres <isaacmanjarres@...gle.com>

I think this should have "Co-developed-by:"s for each person, since this
isn't explicitly a S-o-B chain...

> > ---
> >  fs/pstore/ram.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram.c b/fs/pstore/ram.c
> > index ade66dbe5f39..e4bbba187011 100644
> > --- a/fs/pstore/ram.c
> > +++ b/fs/pstore/ram.c
> > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/compiler.h>
> >  #include <linux/of.h>
> >  #include <linux/of_address.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_reserved_mem.h>
> >
> >  #include "internal.h"
> >  #include "ram_internal.h"
> > @@ -643,6 +644,7 @@ static int ramoops_parse_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,
> >  {
> >         struct device_node *of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> >         struct device_node *parent_node;
> > +       struct reserved_mem *rmem;
> >         struct resource *res;
> >         u32 value;
> >         int ret;
> > @@ -651,13 +653,20 @@ static int ramoops_parse_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,
> >
> >         res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> >         if (!res) {
> > -               dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> > -                       "failed to locate DT /reserved-memory resource\n");
> > -               return -EINVAL;
> > +               rmem = of_reserved_mem_lookup(of_node);
> 
> Nit: you could keep rmem scoped locally here.
> 
> Otherwise the code looks sane, I just suspect the commit message could
> be more clear in explaining the need/utility of the dts entry using
> alloc-ranges.

I haven't looked closely at the API here, but does this need a "put"
like the "get" stuff? (I assume not, given the "lookup" is on a node...)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook