Re: [PATCH v22 5/8] x86/crash: add x86 crash hotplug support

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Wed, May 03 2023 at 18:41, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> In the patch 'kexec: exclude elfcorehdr from the segment digest'

See reply to 8/8
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index 53bab123a8ee..80538524c494 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -2119,6 +2119,19 @@ config CRASH_DUMP
>  	  (CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y).
>  	  For more details see Documentation/admin-guide/kdump/kdump.rst
>  
> +config CRASH_HOTPLUG
> +	bool "Update the crash elfcorehdr on system configuration changes"
> +	default y
> +	depends on CRASH_DUMP && (HOTPLUG_CPU || MEMORY_HOTPLUG)
> +	help
> +	  Enable direct update to the crash elfcorehdr (which contains
> +	  the list of CPUs and memory regions to be dumped upon a crash)
> +	  in response to hot plug/unplug or online/offline of CPUs or
> +	  memory. This is a much more advanced approach than userspace
> +	  attempting that.
> +
> +	  If unsure, say Y.

Why is this config an X86 specific thing?

Neither CRASH_DUMP nor HOTPLUG_CPU nor MEMORY_HOTPLUG are in any way X86
specific at all. So why can't you stick that into a place where it can
be reused by other architectures?

It's not rocket science to do 

+	depends on WANTS_CRASH_HOTPLUG && CRASH_DUMP && (HOTPLUG_CPU || MEMORY_HOTPLUG)

or something like that. It's so tiring to have x86 Kconfig be the dump
ground for the initial implementation, then having the sh*t copied to
every other architecture and the cleanup is left to the maintainers.

It's not rocket science to differentiate between a real architecture
specific option and a generally useful option in the first place, right?


> +#ifdef CONFIG_CRASH_HOTPLUG
> +	/*
> +	 * Ensure the elfcorehdr segment large enough for hotplug changes.
> +	 * Account for VMCOREINFO and kernel_map and maximum CPUs.

Neither the first line nor the second one qualifies as parseable sentences.

> +/**
> + * arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event() - Handle hotplug elfcorehdr changes
> + * @image: the active struct kimage

What is an active struct kimage?

> + *
> + * The new elfcorehdr is prepared in a kernel buffer, and then it is
> + * written on top of the existing/old elfcorehdr.

-ENOPARSE

> + */
> +void arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event(struct kimage *image)
> +{
> +	void *elfbuf = NULL, *old_elfcorehdr;
> +	unsigned long nr_mem_ranges;
> +	unsigned long mem, memsz;
> +	unsigned long elfsz = 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Create the new elfcorehdr reflecting the changes to CPU and/or
> +	 * memory resources.
> +	 */
> +	if (prepare_elf_headers(image, &elfbuf, &elfsz, &nr_mem_ranges)) {
> +		pr_err("unable to prepare elfcore headers");
> +		goto out;

So this can fail. Why is there just a pr_err() and no return value which
tells the caller that this failed?

> +	/*
> +	 * Copy new elfcorehdr over the old elfcorehdr at destination.
> +	 */
> +	old_elfcorehdr = kmap_local_page(pfn_to_page(mem >> PAGE_SHIFT));
> +	if (!old_elfcorehdr) {
> +		pr_err("updating elfcorehdr failed\n");

How hard is it to write an error message which is clearly describing the
problem?

Thanks,

        tglx