| 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: <3ed18ba1-e4b1-461e-a3a7-5de2df59ca60@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 15:39:27 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, Alexander Gordeev
<agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>, Eric Farman
<farman@...ux.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 07/11] fs/proc/vmcore: introduce PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
to detect device RAM ranges in 2nd kernel
On 20.11.24 15:05, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 11/20/24 at 11:48am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 20.11.24 11:13, Baoquan He wrote:
>>> On 10/25/24 at 05:11pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> s390 allocates+prepares the elfcore hdr in the dump (2nd) kernel, not in
>>>> the crashed kernel.
>>>>
>>>> RAM provided by memory devices such as virtio-mem can only be detected
>>>> using the device driver; when vmcore_init() is called, these device
>>>> drivers are usually not loaded yet, or the devices did not get probed
>>>> yet. Consequently, on s390 these RAM ranges will not be included in
>>>> the crash dump, which makes the dump partially corrupt and is
>>>> unfortunate.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of deferring the vmcore_init() call, to an (unclear?) later point,
>>>> let's reuse the vmcore_cb infrastructure to obtain device RAM ranges as
>>>> the device drivers probe the device and get access to this information.
>>>>
>>>> Then, we'll add these ranges to the vmcore, adding more PT_LOAD
>>>> entries and updating the offsets+vmcore size.
>>>>
>>>> Use Kconfig tricks to include this code automatically only if (a) there is
>>>> a device driver compiled that implements the callback
>>>> (PROVIDE_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM) and; (b) the architecture actually needs
>>>> this information (NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM).
>>>>
>>>> The current target use case is s390, which only creates an elf64
>>>> elfcore, so focusing on elf64 is sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/proc/Kconfig | 25 ++++++
>>>> fs/proc/vmcore.c | 156 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> include/linux/crash_dump.h | 9 +++
>>>> 3 files changed, 190 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/proc/Kconfig b/fs/proc/Kconfig
>>>> index d80a1431ef7b..1e11de5f9380 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/proc/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/fs/proc/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -61,6 +61,31 @@ config PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_DUMP
>>>> as ELF notes to /proc/vmcore. You can still disable device
>>>> dump using the kernel command line option 'novmcoredd'.
>>>> +config PROVIDE_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
>>>> + def_bool n
>>>> +
>>>> +config NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
>>>> + def_bool n
>>>> +
>>>> +config PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
>>>> + def_bool y
>>>> + depends on PROC_VMCORE
>>>> + depends on NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
>>>> + depends on PROVIDE_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
>>>
>>> Kconfig item is always a thing I need learn to master.
>>
>> Yes, it's usually a struggle to get it right. It took me a couple of
>> iterations to get to this point :)
>>
>>> When I checked
>>> this part, I have to write them down to deliberate. I am wondering if
>>> below 'simple version' works too and more understandable. Please help
>>> point out what I have missed.
>>>
>>> ===========simple version======
>>> config PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
>>> def_bool y
>>> depends on PROC_VMCORE && VIRTIO_MEM
>>> depends on NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
>>>
>>> config S390
>>> select NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
>>> ============
>
> Sorry, things written down didn't correctly reflect them in my mind.
>
> ===========simple version======
> fs/proc/Kconfig:
> config PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> def_bool y
> depends on PROC_VMCORE && VIRTIO_MEM
> depends on NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
>
> arch/s390/Kconfig:
> config NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
> def y
> ==================================
That would work, but I don't completely like it.
(a) I want s390x to select NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM instead. Staring
at a bunch of similar cases (git grep "config NEED" | grep Kconfig, git
grep "config ARCH_WANTS" | grep Kconfig), "select" is the common way to
do it.
So unless there is a pretty good reason, I'll keep
NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM as is.
(b) In the context of this patch, "depends on VIRTIO_MEM" does not make
sense. We could have an intermediate:
config PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
def_bool n
depends on PROC_VMCORE
depends on NEED_PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM
And change that with VIRTIO_MEM support in the relevant patch.
I faintly remember that we try avoiding such dependencies and prefer
selecting Kconfigs instead. Just look at the SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS mess we
still have to clean up. But as we don't expect that many providers for
now, I don't care.
Thanks!
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists