linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] kexec: Fix kexec_file

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPhsuW7N2ZxO5KubvK4O7EganpGeFFMtx4JGE9sGO5OnzWscgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Sep 2023 15:53:02 -0700
From:   Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To:     Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
Cc:     Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Philipp Rudo <prudo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Philipp Rudo <prudo@...hat.com>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] kexec: Fix kexec_file_load for llvm16 with PGO

On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 2:52 PM Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Song
>
> On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 23:48, Song Liu <song@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ricardo,
> >
> > Thanks for your kind reply.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 2:18 PM Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Song
> > >
> > > On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 01:08, Song Liu <song@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ricardo and folks,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 7:48 AM Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When upreving llvm I realised that kexec stopped working on my test
> > > > > platform.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason seems to be that due to PGO there are multiple .text sections
> > > > > on the purgatory, and kexec does not supports that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
> > > >
> > > > We are seeing WARNINGs like the following while kexec'ing a PGO and
> > > > LTO enabled kernel:
> > > >
> > > > WARNING: CPU: 26 PID: 110894 at kernel/kexec_file.c:919
> > > > kexec_load_purgatory+0x37f/0x390
> > > >
> > > > AFAICT, the warning was added by this set, and it was triggered when
> > > > we have many .text sections
> > > > in purgatory.ro. The kexec was actually successful. So I wonder
> > > > whether we really need the
> > > > WARNING here. If we disable LTO (PGO is still enabled), we don't see
> > > > the WARNING any more.
> > > >
> > > > I also tested an older kernel (5.19 based), where we also see many
> > > > .text sections with LTO. It
> > > > kexec()'ed fine. (It doesn't have the WARN_ON() in
> > > > kexec_purgatory_setup_sechdrs).
> > >
> > > You have been "lucky" that the code has chosen the correct start
> > > address, you need to modify the linker script of your kernel to
> > > disable PGO.
> > > You need to backport a patch like this:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAPhsuW5_qAvV0N3o+hOiAnb1=buJ1pLzqYW9D+Bwft6hxJvAeQ@mail.gmail.com/T/#md68b7f832216b0c56bbec0c9b07332e180b9ba2b
> >
> > We already have this commit in our branch. AFAICT, the issue was
> > triggered by LTO. So something like the following seems fixes it
> > (I haven't finished the end-to-end test yet). Does this change make
> > sense to you?
>
> if the end-to-end works, please send it as a patch to the mailing list.
>
> Thanks! :)

OK, it works (AFAICT). Sending the patch.

Thanks,
Song