From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> To: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>, Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com>, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>, kernel-team@android.com Subject: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: kexec_file_load vs memory reservations Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 14:35:31 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210429133533.1750721-1-maz@kernel.org> (raw) It recently became apparent that using kexec with kexec_file_load() on arm64 is pretty similar to playing Russian roulette. Depending on the amount of memory, the HW supported and the firmware interface used, your secondary kernel may overwrite critical memory regions without which the secondary kernel cannot boot (the GICv3 LPI tables being a prime example of such reserved regions). It turns out that there is at least two ways for reserved memory regions to be described to kexec: /proc/iomem for the userspace implementation, and memblock.reserved for kexec_file. And of course, our LPI tables are only reserved using the resource tree, leading to the aforementioned stamping. Similar things could happen with ACPI tables as well. On my 24xA53 system artificially limited to 256MB of RAM (yes, it boots with that little memory), trying to kexec a secondary kernel failed every times. I can only presume that this was mostly tested using kdump, which preserves the entire kernel memory range. This small series aims at triggering a discussion on what are the expectations for kexec_file, and whether we should unify the two reservation mechanisms. And in the meantime, it gets things going... Marc Zyngier (2): firmware/efi: Tell memblock about EFI reservations ACPI: arm64: Reserve the ACPI tables in memblock arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 1 + drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.29.2 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> To: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>, Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com>, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>, kernel-team@android.com Subject: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: kexec_file_load vs memory reservations Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 14:35:31 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210429133533.1750721-1-maz@kernel.org> (raw) It recently became apparent that using kexec with kexec_file_load() on arm64 is pretty similar to playing Russian roulette. Depending on the amount of memory, the HW supported and the firmware interface used, your secondary kernel may overwrite critical memory regions without which the secondary kernel cannot boot (the GICv3 LPI tables being a prime example of such reserved regions). It turns out that there is at least two ways for reserved memory regions to be described to kexec: /proc/iomem for the userspace implementation, and memblock.reserved for kexec_file. And of course, our LPI tables are only reserved using the resource tree, leading to the aforementioned stamping. Similar things could happen with ACPI tables as well. On my 24xA53 system artificially limited to 256MB of RAM (yes, it boots with that little memory), trying to kexec a secondary kernel failed every times. I can only presume that this was mostly tested using kdump, which preserves the entire kernel memory range. This small series aims at triggering a discussion on what are the expectations for kexec_file, and whether we should unify the two reservation mechanisms. And in the meantime, it gets things going... Marc Zyngier (2): firmware/efi: Tell memblock about EFI reservations ACPI: arm64: Reserve the ACPI tables in memblock arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 1 + drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.29.2 _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
next reply other threads:[~2021-04-29 13:37 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-04-29 13:35 Marc Zyngier [this message] 2021-04-29 13:35 ` [PATCH 0/2] arm64: kexec_file_load vs memory reservations Marc Zyngier 2021-04-29 13:35 ` [PATCH 1/2] firmware/efi: Tell memblock about EFI reservations Marc Zyngier 2021-04-29 13:35 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-05-03 18:56 ` Moritz Fischer 2021-05-03 18:56 ` Moritz Fischer 2021-05-13 3:20 ` Dave Young 2021-05-13 3:20 ` Dave Young 2021-05-13 11:11 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-05-13 11:11 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-04-29 13:35 ` [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: arm64: Reserve the ACPI tables in memblock Marc Zyngier 2021-04-29 13:35 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-05-03 18:57 ` Moritz Fischer 2021-05-03 18:57 ` Moritz Fischer 2021-05-12 18:04 ` [PATCH 0/2] arm64: kexec_file_load vs memory reservations Marc Zyngier 2021-05-12 18:04 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-05-13 3:17 ` Dave Young 2021-05-13 3:17 ` Dave Young 2021-05-13 11:07 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-05-13 11:07 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-05-18 11:48 ` Will Deacon 2021-05-18 11:48 ` Will Deacon 2021-05-18 14:23 ` Bhupesh Sharma 2021-05-18 14:23 ` Bhupesh Sharma 2021-05-19 15:19 ` Catalin Marinas 2021-05-19 15:19 ` Catalin Marinas 2021-05-25 16:22 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-05-25 16:22 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-06-02 14:22 ` James Morse 2021-06-02 14:22 ` James Morse 2021-06-02 15:59 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-06-02 15:59 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-06-02 16:58 ` James Morse 2021-06-02 16:58 ` James Morse
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20210429133533.1750721-1-maz@kernel.org \ --to=maz@kernel.org \ --cc=ardb@kernel.org \ --cc=bhsharma@redhat.com \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \ --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \ --cc=james.morse@arm.com \ --cc=kernel-team@android.com \ --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \ --cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.