linux-kernel - RE: (2) (2) [RESEND PATCH 00/10] memblock: introduce memsize showing reserved memory

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: Fri, 31 May 2024 17:21:41 +0900
From: Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...sung.com>
To: "richard.weiyang@...il.com" <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, Jaewon Kim
	<jaewon31.kim@...sung.com>
CC: Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...il.com>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
	"vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org"
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"tkjos@...gle.com" <tkjos@...gle.com>, Pintu Agarwal <pintu.ping@...il.com>
Subject: RE: (2) (2) [RESEND PATCH 00/10] memblock: introduce memsize
 showing reserved memory

>On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 07:49:28PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>>>On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:10:29PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>>>>(Sorry I might forget to change to be plain text)
>>>>
>>>>Oh good thing, I did not know this patch. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>By the way, I've tried to get memblock/memory and kernel log from a
>>>>device based on
>>>>v6.6.17 kernel device, to see upstream patches above.
>>>>memblok/memory does not show region for
>>>
>>>memblock/memory only shows ranges put in "memory".
>>>memblock/reserved shows ranges put in "reserved".
>>>
>>>If we just put them in "reserved", it will not displayed in "memory".
>>
>>Hi
>>Let me explain more.
>>
>>In this case, the intially passed memory starts from 0000000081960000 so memblock/memory shows as it is.
>>
>># xxd -g 8 /proc/device-tree/memory/reg
>>00000000: 0000000081960000 00000000000a0000  ................
>>00000010: 0000000081a40000 00000000001c0000  ................
>>
>># cat sys/kernel/debug/memblock/memory
>>   0: 0x0000000081960000..0x00000000819fffff    0 NONE
>>   1: 0x0000000081a40000..0x0000000081bfffff    0 NONE
>>
>># cat sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved
>>   0: 0x0000000082800000..0x00000000847fffff    0 NONE
>>
>>The memblock information in the kernel log may report like it allocated those memblock regions, as there was not overlapped even though it is already no-map.
>>
>>(I removed the name.)
>><6>[    0.000000][    T0] OF: reserved mem: 0x0000000080000000..0x0000000080dfffff (14336 KiB) nomap non-reusable AAA
>><6>[    0.000000][    T0] OF: reserved mem: 0x0000000080e00000..0x00000000811fffff (4096 KiB) nomap non-reusable BBB
>><6>[    0.000000][    T0] OF: reserved mem: 0x0000000081200000..0x00000000813fffff (2048 KiB) nomap non-reusable CCC
>><6>[    0.000000][    T0] OF: reserved mem: 0x0000000081a00000..0x0000000081a3ffff (256 KiB) nomap non-reusable DDD
>>
>
>This looks not printed by memblock_reserve(), right? It is printed by your own
>driver?

AFAIK these log came from the commit below.
aeb9267eb6b1 of: reserved-mem: print out reserved-mem details during boot

>
>>So a smart parser should combine the krenel log and the memblock/memory log.
>>
>>In my memsize feature shows it like this though.
>>
>>0x0000000081400000-0x0000000081960000 0x00560000 (    5504 KB ) nomap unusable unknown
>>
>>BR
>>
>
>I am sorry, I still not catch your point. Let me try to understand your message.
>
>You mentioned several regions, let me put them in order.
>
>(1)   0x0000000080000000..0x0000000080dfffff    printed by driver
>(2)   0x0000000080e00000..0x00000000811fffff    printed by driver
>(3)   0x0000000081200000..0x00000000813fffff    printed by driver
>(4)   0x0000000081400000..0x0000000081960000    expected to print in new debugfs
>(5)   0x0000000081960000..0x00000000819fffff    listed in reg/memory
>(6)   0x0000000081a00000..0x0000000081a3ffff    printed by driver
>(7)   0x0000000081a40000..0x0000000081bfffff    listed in reg/memory
>(8)   0x0000000082800000..0x00000000847fffff    listed in reserved
>
>If you just want information for region (4), sound we can do it in user-space?
>
>BTW, are region 1, 2, 3, 6, reserved in membock?

Yes correct, I though (4) case could be shown to easily catch these hidden regions.
As I said, I think 1, 2, 3, 6 seem to be not passed to kernel, it was just tried as
they are defined in kernel device tree.


>
>-- 
>Wei Yang
>Help you, Help me