linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH linux-next 1/3] x86, crash: don't nest CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP ifdef inside CONFIG_KEXEC

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:
 <SN6PR02MB41575A5568875B85C8AA7F4BD47D2@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:39:39 +0000
From: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
CC: "kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org"
	<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, "nathan@...nel.org" <nathan@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH linux-next 1/3] x86, crash: don't nest CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP
 ifdef inside CONFIG_KEXEC_CODE ifdef scope

From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
> 
> On 01/29/24 at 06:27pm, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024
> 5:51 AM
> > >
> > > Michael pointed out that the #ifdef CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP is nested inside
> > > arch/x86/xen/enlighten_hvm.c.
> >
> > Did some words get left out in the above sentence?  It mentions the Xen
> > case, but not the Hyper-V case.  I'm not sure what you intended.
> 
> Thanks a lot for your careful reviewing.
> 
> Yeah, I tried to list all affected file names, seems my vim editor threw
> away some words. And I forgot mentioning the change in reboot.c.
> 
> I adjusted log as below according to your comments, do you think it's OK
> now?

Yes -- looks like everything is included and clear up my confusion.  But
I still have two small nits per below. :-)

Michael

> 
> ===
> Michael pointed out that the #ifdef CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP is nested inside
> CONFIG_KEXEC_CODE ifdef scope in some XEN, HyperV codes.

s/Hyper-V/HyperV/

> 
> Although the nesting works well too since CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP has
> dependency on CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE, it may cause confusion because there
> are places where it's not nested, and people may think it needs be nested

s/needs to be/needs be/

> even though it doesn't have to.
> 
> Fix that by moving  CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP ifdeffery of codes out of
> CONFIG_KEXEC_CODE ifdeffery scope.
> 
> And also put function machine_crash_shutdown() definition inside
> CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP ifdef scope instead of CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE ifdef.
> 
> And also fix a building error Nathan reported as below by replacing
> CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE ifdef with CONFIG_VMCORE_INFO ifdef.
> ......
> ===
> 
> Thanks
> Baoquan