| 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: <ZXCVUD9cCYEShrrj@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 23:37:52 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
joe@...ches.com, nathan@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] kexec_file, ricv: print out debugging message if
required
On 12/04/23 at 04:14pm, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 11:38:05PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 12/01/23 at 10:38am, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:39:53AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > >
> > > $subject has a typo in the arch bit :)
> >
> > Indeed, will fix if need report. Thanks for careful checking.
> >
> > >
> > > > Replace pr_debug() with the newly added kexec_dprintk() in kexec_file
> > > > loading related codes.
> > >
> > > Commit messages should be understandable in isolation, but this only
> > > explains (part of) what is obvious in the diff. Why is this change
> > > being made?
> >
> > The purpose has been detailedly described in cover letter and patch 1
> > log. Andrew has picked these patches into his tree and grabbed the cover
> > letter log into the relevant commit for people's later checking. All
> > these seven patches will be present in mainline together. This is common
> > way when posting patch series? Please let me know if I misunderstand
> > anything.
>
> Each patch having a commit message that explains why a change is being
> made is the expectation. It is especially useful to explain the why
> here, since it is not just a mechanical conversion of pr_debug()s as the
> commit message suggests.
Sounds reasonable. I rephrase the patch 3 log as below, do you think
it's OK to you?
I will also adjust patch logs on other ARCH once this one is done.
Thanks.
=============================
Subject: [PATCH v3 5/7] kexec_file, ricv: print out debugging message if required
Then when specifying '-d' for kexec_file_load interface, loaded
locations of kernel/initrd/cmdline etc can be printed out to help debug.
Here replace pr_debug() with the newly added kexec_dprintk() in kexec_file
loading related codes.
And also replace pr_notice() with kexec_dprintk() in elf_kexec_load()
because it's make sense to always print out loaded location of purgatory
and device tree even though users don't expect the message.
And also remove kexec_image_info() because the content has been printed
out in generic code.
============================
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And also remove kexec_image_info() because the content has been printed
> > > > out in generic code.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/riscv/kernel/elf_kexec.c | 11 ++++++-----
> > > > arch/riscv/kernel/machine_kexec.c | 26 --------------------------
> > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/elf_kexec.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/elf_kexec.c
> > > > index e60fbd8660c4..5bd1ec3341fe 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/elf_kexec.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/elf_kexec.c
> > > > @@ -216,7 +216,6 @@ static void *elf_kexec_load(struct kimage *image, char *kernel_buf,
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > goto out;
> > > > kernel_start = image->start;
> > > > - pr_notice("The entry point of kernel at 0x%lx\n", image->start);
> > > >
> > > > /* Add the kernel binary to the image */
> > > > ret = riscv_kexec_elf_load(image, &ehdr, &elf_info,
> > > > @@ -252,8 +251,8 @@ static void *elf_kexec_load(struct kimage *image, char *kernel_buf,
> > > > image->elf_load_addr = kbuf.mem;
> > > > image->elf_headers_sz = headers_sz;
> > > >
> > > > - pr_debug("Loaded elf core header at 0x%lx bufsz=0x%lx memsz=0x%lx\n",
> > > > - image->elf_load_addr, kbuf.bufsz, kbuf.memsz);
> > > > + kexec_dprintk("Loaded elf core header at 0x%lx bufsz=0x%lx memsz=0x%lx\n",
> > > > + image->elf_load_addr, kbuf.bufsz, kbuf.memsz);
> > > >
> > > > /* Setup cmdline for kdump kernel case */
> > > > modified_cmdline = setup_kdump_cmdline(image, cmdline,
> > > > @@ -275,6 +274,8 @@ static void *elf_kexec_load(struct kimage *image, char *kernel_buf,
> > > > pr_err("Error loading purgatory ret=%d\n", ret);
> > > > goto out;
> > > > }
> > > > + kexec_dprintk("Loaded purgatory at 0x%lx\n", kbuf.mem);
> > > > +
> > > > ret = kexec_purgatory_get_set_symbol(image, "riscv_kernel_entry",
> > > > &kernel_start,
> > > > sizeof(kernel_start), 0);
> > > > @@ -293,7 +294,7 @@ static void *elf_kexec_load(struct kimage *image, char *kernel_buf,
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > goto out;
> > > > initrd_pbase = kbuf.mem;
> > >
> > > > - pr_notice("Loaded initrd at 0x%lx\n", initrd_pbase);
> > > > + kexec_dprintk("Loaded initrd at 0x%lx\n", initrd_pbase);
> > >
> > > This is not a pr_debug().
> > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /* Add the DTB to the image */
> > > > @@ -318,7 +319,7 @@ static void *elf_kexec_load(struct kimage *image, char *kernel_buf,
> > > > }
> > > > /* Cache the fdt buffer address for memory cleanup */
> > > > image->arch.fdt = fdt;
> > >
> > > > - pr_notice("Loaded device tree at 0x%lx\n", kbuf.mem);
> > > > + kexec_dprintk("Loaded device tree at 0x%lx\n", kbuf.mem);
> > >
> > > Neither is this. Why are they being moved from pr_notice()?
> >
> > You are right.
> >
> > While always printing out the loaded location of purgatory and
> > device tree doesn't make sense. It will be confusing when users
> > see these even when they do normal kexec/kdump loading. It should be
> > changed to pr_debug().
> >
> > Which way do you suggest?
> > 1) change it back to pr_debug(), fix it in another patch;
> > 2) keep it as is in the patch;
>
> Personally I think it is fine to change them all in one patch, but the
> rationale for converting pr_notice() to your new debug infrastructure
> needs to be in the commit message.
Sure, sounds good to me. I have changed the patch log to reflect this as
you suggested, please help check. Thanks again.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists