linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/e820: update code comment about e820_table

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: <CALu+AoRtSRfam6D1UP79SBXomNo7TSSZ+raDeuJnMfiZNeBhTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 11:57:07 +0800
From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To: "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/e820: update code comment about e820_table_kexec

Hi,

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 11:26, Chen, Yu C <yu.c.chen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
> Thanks for bringing this up,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
> > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2025 2:30 PM
> > To: Chen, Yu C <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
> > Cc: x86@...nel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; kexec@...ts.infradead.org;
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>; Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/e820: update code comment about
> > e820_table_kexec
> >
> > > BTW,  the conversation below drived me to read the e820 code:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMj1kXG1hbiafKRyC5qM1Vj5X7x-
> > dmLndqqo2AYnH
> > > MRxDz-80w@...l.gmail.com/T/#u
> > >
> > > It could be better to clean up the e820 tables, anyway the comment fix
> > > in this patch itself is good for now.
> > >
> > > Basically e820_table_firmware is used by kexec-tools kexec_load
> > > implementation,  e820_table_kexec is used by kexec_file_load code to
> > > pass to the 2nd kernel in boot params.
> > >
> > > The e820_table_firmware is said to not be modified by the kernel in
> > > the code comment, but this is not true, at least the sev code updates
> > > the table.    The hibernate code generates crc32 checksum and verifies
> > > it, but since AFAIK e820 table update only happens in boot phase, it
> > > will be stable on runtime.  So we can just use e820_table_firmware for
> > > kexec use and drop the e820_table_kexec. With the change the
> > > kexec_file_load and kexec_load see the same memory ranges.
> > >
> > > Otherwise I thought we can use just one e820 table, dropping
> > > e820_table_firmware and e820_table_kexec, but then there will be
> > > fragments and memory waste  due to the setup_data ranges are reserved
> > > and updated in e820_table, so the e820_table_firmware being still be
> > > used for kexec makes sense.
> > >
> > > Anyway I need to think more about it,  please let me know if you have
> > > any concerns.
> >
> > Reread the old commit 12df216c61c89e31e27e74146115a9728880ca6f
> >     x86/boot/e820: Introduce the bootloader provided e820_table_firmware[]
> > table
> >
> > It seems the e820_table_firmware was changed to be exported in sysfs
> > instead of e820_table_kexec,   but I suspect this is wrong.
> > kexec-tools (kexec_load) use the exported sysfs memmap info,  but
> > e820_table_firmware was created by above commit to be used by hibernation
> > and the table should not be changed,  the fact is there are changes happen
> > from time to time.
> >
>
> This is not expected from the original introducing of e820_table_firmware, it
> should not be changed by OS. I suppose the changes to e820_table_firmware
> are because of the kexec requirements for /sys/firmware/memmap?

Yes, I think so at least for the AMD part.  Just maybe nobody noticed
this table is meant to keep not changed.

> Another question is that, why does kexec_load() get the memory layout
> from /sys/firmware/memmap, but  kexec_file_load() relies on the in-kernel
> e820_table_kexec?

I forgot the details, searching the git log, the history is like this:

Originally the table name is e820_table_saved,  both kexec-tools and
kernel kexec_file_load use the data from e820_saved.  Kexec-tools used
it via the sysfs memmap.

Later commit 544a0f47e7803443980496d6c9ae78b6c2b3dbcb changed the
table name to e820_table_firmware, so both kernel and kexec-tools used
e820_table_firmware.

And then the commit a09bae0f8aa08d4d76d0ebece26062a49ec51ac9 changed
the name to e820_table_kexec (kernel kexec_file_load use it) and later
the other commit created a new table e820_table_firmware.

The key here is the kexec-tools usage of sysfs was missed.

>
> > Question is does hibernation use the sysfs entries from its userspace tools?
>
> Hibernation does not use this sysfs entries in  userspace(or uswsusp )as far
> as I know.

Good to know, thanks!

>
> > If yes, then we should have both kexec table and firmware table exported
> > because they are for different purposes and one may change, another not.
> >
> > If hibernation only uses the table within the kernel then it makes no sense to
> > export it to sysfs, we should only export the kexec table for kexec-tools use.
> > In this way  both kexec_load (userspace) and kexec_file_load (kernel load) can
> > use same e820 table, it will reduce the bugs and be easier to maintain.
>
> I'm OK with not exposing e820_table_firmware  to /sys/firmware/memmap, if
> kexec is the only user of /sys/firmware/memmap.

Since ingo was involved in the table changes. Ingo,  any suggestions?

>
> Thanks,
> Chenyu