All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-man@vger.kernel.org" <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: Edited kexec_load(2) [kexec_file_load()] man page for review
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:04:38 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54C89816.8030709@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150127142459.GA12851@redhat.com>

Hi Vivek,

On 01/27/2015 03:24 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 02:30:25PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> [..]
>>
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Please find my responses below. Sorry, I got stuck in other work and
> forgot about this thread.
> 
>> So, returning to the kexeec_segment structure:
>>
>>            struct kexec_segment {
>>                void   *buf;        /* Buffer in user space */
>>                size_t  bufsz;      /* Buffer length in user space */
>>                void   *mem;        /* Physical address of kernel */
>>                size_t  memsz;      /* Physical address length */
>>            };
>>
>> Are the following statements correct:
>> * buf + bufsz identify a memory region in the caller's virtual 
>>   address space that is the source of the copy
> 
> Yes.

Okay.

>> * mem + memsz specify the target memory region of the copy
> 
> Yes.

Okay.

>> * mem is  physical memory address, as seen from kernel space
> 
> Yes.

Okay.

>> * the number of bytes copied from userspace is min(bufsz, memsz)
> 
> Yes. bufsz can not be more than memsz. There is a check to validate
> this in kernel.
> 
> 	result = -EINVAL;
> 	for (i = 0; i < nr_segments; i++) {
> 		if (image->segment[i].bufsz > image->segment[i].memsz)
> 			return result;
> 	}

Okay. So it's more precise to leave discussion of min(bufz, memsz) 
out of the man page just to say: bufsz bytes are transferred; 
if bufsz < memsz, then the excess bytes in the target region are 
filled with zeros. Right?

>> * if bufsz > memsz, then excess bytes in the user-space buffer 
>>   are ignored.
> 
> You will get -EINVAL.

Okay.

>> * if memsz > bufsz, then excess bytes in the target kernel buffer
>>   are filled with zeros.
> 
> Yes.

Okay.

>> Also, it seems to me that 'mem' need not be page aligned.
>> Is that correct? Should the man page say something about that?
>> (E.g., is it generally desirable that 'mem' should be page aligned?)
> 
> mem and memsz need to be page aligned. There is a check for that too.
> 
> 	mstart = image->segment[i].mem;
> 	mend   = mstart + image->segment[i].memsz;
> 	if ((mstart & ~PAGE_MASK) || (mend & ~PAGE_MASK))
> 		return result;
> 
>>
>> Likewise, 'memsz' doesn't need to beta page multiple, IIUC.
>> Should the man page say anything about this? For example, should 
>> it note that the initialized kernel segment will be of size:
>>
>>      (mem % PAGE_SIZE + memsz) rounded up to the next multiple of PAGE_SIZE
>>
>> And should it note that if 'mem' is not a multiple of the page size, then
>> the initial bytes (mem % PAGE_SIZE)) in the first page of the kernel segment 
>> will be zeros?
>>
>> (Hopefully I have read kimage_load_normal_segment() correctly.)
> 
> Both mem and memsz need to be page aligned.

And the error if not is EADDRNOTAVAIL, right?

>> And one further question. Other than the fact that they are used with 
>> different system calls, what is the difference between KEXEC_ON_CRASH 
>> and KEXEC_FILE_ON_CRASH?
> 
> Right now I can't think of any other difference. They both tell respective
> system call that this kernel needs to be loaded in reserved memory region
> for crash kernel.

Okay.

I've made various adjustments to the page in the light of your comments 
above. Thanks!

Cheers,

Michael



-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
	<linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	kexec-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
	lkml <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto-kltTT9wpgjJwATOyAt5JVQ@public.gmane.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp-Gina5bIWoIWzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>,
	mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Dave Young <dyoung-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman"
	<ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: Edited kexec_load(2) [kexec_file_load()] man page for review
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:04:38 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54C89816.8030709@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150127142459.GA12851-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>

Hi Vivek,

On 01/27/2015 03:24 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 02:30:25PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> [..]
>>
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Please find my responses below. Sorry, I got stuck in other work and
> forgot about this thread.
> 
>> So, returning to the kexeec_segment structure:
>>
>>            struct kexec_segment {
>>                void   *buf;        /* Buffer in user space */
>>                size_t  bufsz;      /* Buffer length in user space */
>>                void   *mem;        /* Physical address of kernel */
>>                size_t  memsz;      /* Physical address length */
>>            };
>>
>> Are the following statements correct:
>> * buf + bufsz identify a memory region in the caller's virtual 
>>   address space that is the source of the copy
> 
> Yes.

Okay.

>> * mem + memsz specify the target memory region of the copy
> 
> Yes.

Okay.

>> * mem is  physical memory address, as seen from kernel space
> 
> Yes.

Okay.

>> * the number of bytes copied from userspace is min(bufsz, memsz)
> 
> Yes. bufsz can not be more than memsz. There is a check to validate
> this in kernel.
> 
> 	result = -EINVAL;
> 	for (i = 0; i < nr_segments; i++) {
> 		if (image->segment[i].bufsz > image->segment[i].memsz)
> 			return result;
> 	}

Okay. So it's more precise to leave discussion of min(bufz, memsz) 
out of the man page just to say: bufsz bytes are transferred; 
if bufsz < memsz, then the excess bytes in the target region are 
filled with zeros. Right?

>> * if bufsz > memsz, then excess bytes in the user-space buffer 
>>   are ignored.
> 
> You will get -EINVAL.

Okay.

>> * if memsz > bufsz, then excess bytes in the target kernel buffer
>>   are filled with zeros.
> 
> Yes.

Okay.

>> Also, it seems to me that 'mem' need not be page aligned.
>> Is that correct? Should the man page say something about that?
>> (E.g., is it generally desirable that 'mem' should be page aligned?)
> 
> mem and memsz need to be page aligned. There is a check for that too.
> 
> 	mstart = image->segment[i].mem;
> 	mend   = mstart + image->segment[i].memsz;
> 	if ((mstart & ~PAGE_MASK) || (mend & ~PAGE_MASK))
> 		return result;
> 
>>
>> Likewise, 'memsz' doesn't need to beta page multiple, IIUC.
>> Should the man page say anything about this? For example, should 
>> it note that the initialized kernel segment will be of size:
>>
>>      (mem % PAGE_SIZE + memsz) rounded up to the next multiple of PAGE_SIZE
>>
>> And should it note that if 'mem' is not a multiple of the page size, then
>> the initial bytes (mem % PAGE_SIZE)) in the first page of the kernel segment 
>> will be zeros?
>>
>> (Hopefully I have read kimage_load_normal_segment() correctly.)
> 
> Both mem and memsz need to be page aligned.

And the error if not is EADDRNOTAVAIL, right?

>> And one further question. Other than the fact that they are used with 
>> different system calls, what is the difference between KEXEC_ON_CRASH 
>> and KEXEC_FILE_ON_CRASH?
> 
> Right now I can't think of any other difference. They both tell respective
> system call that this kernel needs to be loaded in reserved memory region
> for crash kernel.

Okay.

I've made various adjustments to the page in the light of your comments 
above. Thanks!

Cheers,

Michael



-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: "linux-man@vger.kernel.org" <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	mtk.manpages@gmail.com, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: Edited kexec_load(2) [kexec_file_load()] man page for review
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:04:38 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54C89816.8030709@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150127142459.GA12851@redhat.com>

Hi Vivek,

On 01/27/2015 03:24 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 02:30:25PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> [..]
>>
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Please find my responses below. Sorry, I got stuck in other work and
> forgot about this thread.
> 
>> So, returning to the kexeec_segment structure:
>>
>>            struct kexec_segment {
>>                void   *buf;        /* Buffer in user space */
>>                size_t  bufsz;      /* Buffer length in user space */
>>                void   *mem;        /* Physical address of kernel */
>>                size_t  memsz;      /* Physical address length */
>>            };
>>
>> Are the following statements correct:
>> * buf + bufsz identify a memory region in the caller's virtual 
>>   address space that is the source of the copy
> 
> Yes.

Okay.

>> * mem + memsz specify the target memory region of the copy
> 
> Yes.

Okay.

>> * mem is  physical memory address, as seen from kernel space
> 
> Yes.

Okay.

>> * the number of bytes copied from userspace is min(bufsz, memsz)
> 
> Yes. bufsz can not be more than memsz. There is a check to validate
> this in kernel.
> 
> 	result = -EINVAL;
> 	for (i = 0; i < nr_segments; i++) {
> 		if (image->segment[i].bufsz > image->segment[i].memsz)
> 			return result;
> 	}

Okay. So it's more precise to leave discussion of min(bufz, memsz) 
out of the man page just to say: bufsz bytes are transferred; 
if bufsz < memsz, then the excess bytes in the target region are 
filled with zeros. Right?

>> * if bufsz > memsz, then excess bytes in the user-space buffer 
>>   are ignored.
> 
> You will get -EINVAL.

Okay.

>> * if memsz > bufsz, then excess bytes in the target kernel buffer
>>   are filled with zeros.
> 
> Yes.

Okay.

>> Also, it seems to me that 'mem' need not be page aligned.
>> Is that correct? Should the man page say something about that?
>> (E.g., is it generally desirable that 'mem' should be page aligned?)
> 
> mem and memsz need to be page aligned. There is a check for that too.
> 
> 	mstart = image->segment[i].mem;
> 	mend   = mstart + image->segment[i].memsz;
> 	if ((mstart & ~PAGE_MASK) || (mend & ~PAGE_MASK))
> 		return result;
> 
>>
>> Likewise, 'memsz' doesn't need to beta page multiple, IIUC.
>> Should the man page say anything about this? For example, should 
>> it note that the initialized kernel segment will be of size:
>>
>>      (mem % PAGE_SIZE + memsz) rounded up to the next multiple of PAGE_SIZE
>>
>> And should it note that if 'mem' is not a multiple of the page size, then
>> the initial bytes (mem % PAGE_SIZE)) in the first page of the kernel segment 
>> will be zeros?
>>
>> (Hopefully I have read kimage_load_normal_segment() correctly.)
> 
> Both mem and memsz need to be page aligned.

And the error if not is EADDRNOTAVAIL, right?

>> And one further question. Other than the fact that they are used with 
>> different system calls, what is the difference between KEXEC_ON_CRASH 
>> and KEXEC_FILE_ON_CRASH?
> 
> Right now I can't think of any other difference. They both tell respective
> system call that this kernel needs to be loaded in reserved memory region
> for crash kernel.

Okay.

I've made various adjustments to the page in the light of your comments 
above. Thanks!

Cheers,

Michael



-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-28 21:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-09 19:17 Edited kexec_load(2) [kexec_file_load()] man page for review Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-11-09 19:17 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-11-09 19:17 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-11-11 21:30 ` Vivek Goyal
2014-11-11 21:30   ` Vivek Goyal
2014-11-11 21:30   ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-07 21:17   ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-07 21:17     ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-07 21:17     ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-12 22:16     ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-12 22:16       ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-12 22:16       ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-16 13:30       ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-16 13:30         ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-16 13:30         ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-27  8:07         ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-27  8:07           ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-27 14:24         ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-27 14:24           ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-27 14:24           ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-28  8:04           ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) [this message]
2015-01-28  8:04             ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-28  8:04             ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-28 14:48             ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-28 14:48               ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-28 14:48               ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-28 15:49               ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-28 15:49                 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-28 15:49                 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-28 20:34                 ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-28 20:34                   ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-28 20:34                   ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-28 21:14                   ` Scot Doyle
2015-01-28 21:14                     ` Scot Doyle
2015-01-28 21:14                     ` Scot Doyle
2015-01-28 21:31                     ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-28 21:31                       ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-28 21:31                       ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-28 22:10                       ` Scot Doyle
2015-01-28 22:10                         ` Scot Doyle
2015-01-28 22:10                         ` Scot Doyle
2015-01-28 22:25                         ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-28 22:25                           ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-28 22:25                           ` Vivek Goyal
2015-01-29  1:27                           ` Scot Doyle
2015-01-29  1:27                             ` Scot Doyle
2015-01-29  5:39                             ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-29  5:39                               ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-29  5:39                               ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-29 16:06                               ` Scot Doyle
2015-01-29 16:06                                 ` Scot Doyle
2015-01-29 16:06                                 ` Scot Doyle
2015-01-30 15:25                                 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-30 15:25                                   ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-30 15:25                                   ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)

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=54C89816.8030709@gmail.com \
    --to=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    /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: link
Be 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.