From: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: bp@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com,
Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@redhat.com>,
bhe@redhat.com, tiwai@suse.de, x86@kernel.org,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com,
baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com, hpa@zytor.com,
dan.j.williams@intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/kexec: Correct KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END off-by-one error
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 10:51:16 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181016025116.GA14358@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181015134404.GA5906@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
On 10/15/18 at 08:44am, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 12:51:38PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > On 09/30/18 at 05:27pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > > On 09/30/18 at 05:21pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > > > On 09/27/18 at 09:21am, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The only use of KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END is as an argument to
> > > > > walk_system_ram_res():
> > > > >
> > > > > int crash_load_segments(struct kimage *image)
> > > > > {
> > > > > ...
> > > > > walk_system_ram_res(KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_START, KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END,
> > > > > image, determine_backup_region);
> > > > >
> > > > > walk_system_ram_res() expects "start, end" arguments that are inclusive,
> > > > > i.e., the range to be walked includes both the start and end addresses.
> > > >
> > > > Looking at the function comment of find_next_iomem_res, the res->end
> > > > should be exclusive, am I missing something?
> > >
> > > Oops, you fix it in 2nd patch, I apparently miss that.
> > >
> > > Since the fix of checking the end is in another patch, probably merge
> > > these two patches so that they are in one patch to avoid break bisect.
> >
> > Not sure if above comment was missed, Boris, would you mind to fold the
> > patch 1 and 2?
>
> Sorry, I did miss this comment.
>
> Patch 2 was for the very specific case of a single-byte resource at
> the end address, which we probably never see in practice.
>
> For patch 1, the find_next_iomem_res() function comment had
> "[res->start.res->end)", but I think the code actually treated it as
> "[res->start.res->end]", so the comment was inaccurate.
>
> Before my patches we had:
>
> #define KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_START (0UL)
> #define KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END (640 * 1024UL) # 0xa0000
>
> The intention is to search for system RAM resources that intersect
> this region:
>
> [mem 0x0-0x9ffff]
>
> The call is:
>
> walk_system_ram_res(KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_START, KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END,
> ..., determine_backup_region);
> walk_system_ram_res(0, 0xa0000, ..., determine_backup_region);
>
> Assume iomem_resource contains this system RAM resource:
>
> [mem 0x90000-0xaffff]
>
> In find_next_iomem_res(), the "res" input parameter is the region to
> search:
>
> res->start = 0; # KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_START
> res->end = 0xa0000; # KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END
>
> In one of the loop iterations we find the [mem 0x90000-0xaffff]
> resource (p):
>
> p->start = 0x90000;
> p->end = 0xaffff;
>
> if (p->start > end) # 0x90000 > 0xa0000? false
> if (p->end >= start && p->start < end) # 0xaffff >= 0 ? true
> # 0x90000 < 0xa0000 ? true
> break; # so we'll return part of "p"
>
> if (res->start < p->start) # 0x0 < 0x90000 ? true
> res->start = 0x90000; # trim beginning to p->start
> if (res->end > p->end) # 0xa0000 > 0xaffff ? false
>
> So find_next_iomem_res() returns with this:
>
> res->start = 0x90000; # trimmed to p->start
> res->end = 0xa0000; # unchanged from input
>
> [mem 0x90000-0xa0000] # returned resource (res)
>
> and we call determine_backup_region(res), which sets:
>
> image->arch.backup_src_start = 0x90000;
> image->arch.backup_src_sz = resource_size(res) # 0xa0000 - 0x90000 + 1
> # (0x10001)
>
> This is incorrect. What we wanted was the part of [mem 0x90000-0xaffff]
> that intersects the first 640K, i.e., [mem 0x90000-0x9ffff], but what
> we got was [mem 0x90000-0xa0000], which is one byte too long.
>
> The resource returned find_next_iomem_res() always ends at the
> "res->end" supplied as an input parameter *unless* the input res->end
> is strictly greater than the p->end, when it is truncated to p->end.
>
> Bottom line, I don't think patches 1 and 2 need to be folded together
> because they fix different problems.
>
> Bjorn
Bjorn, thanks for the detail explanations, it is very clear now to me.
Indeed 2nd patch is for different issue, please ignore my comment :)
For the series:
Reviewed-by: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
Thanks
Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-16 2:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-27 14:21 [PATCH 0/3] find_next_iomem_res() fixes Bjorn Helgaas
2018-09-27 14:21 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86/kexec: Correct KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END off-by-one error Bjorn Helgaas
2018-09-28 13:15 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-09-30 9:21 ` Dave Young
2018-09-30 9:27 ` Dave Young
2018-10-15 4:51 ` Dave Young
2018-10-15 11:18 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-10-15 13:44 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2018-10-16 2:51 ` Dave Young [this message]
2018-10-09 15:30 ` [tip:x86/mm] " tip-bot for Bjorn Helgaas
2018-09-27 14:22 ` [PATCH 2/3] resource: Include resource end in walk_*() interfaces Bjorn Helgaas
2018-09-28 13:54 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-10-09 15:31 ` [tip:x86/mm] " tip-bot for Bjorn Helgaas
2018-09-27 14:22 ` [PATCH 3/3] resource: Fix find_next_iomem_res() iteration issue Bjorn Helgaas
2018-09-28 16:41 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-10-09 17:30 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2018-10-09 17:35 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-10-09 15:31 ` [tip:x86/mm] " tip-bot for Bjorn Helgaas
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-09-24 22:14 [PATCH 0/3] find_next_iomem_res() fixes Bjorn Helgaas
2018-09-24 22:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86/kexec: Correct KEXEC_BACKUP_SRC_END off-by-one error Bjorn Helgaas
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=20181016025116.GA14358@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com \
--to=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lijiang@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=tiwai@suse.de \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).