Similar with x86_32, on Riscv32 Qemu "virt" machine with 1GB memory, the
crash kernel "crashkernel=4G" is ok as below:
crashkernel reserved: 0x00000000bf400000 - 0x00000001bf400000 (4096 MB)
The cause is that the crash_size is parsed and printed with "unsigned long
long" data type which is 8 bytes but allocated used with "phys_addr_t"
which is 4 bytes in memblock_phys_alloc_range().
Fix it by checking if the crash_size is greater than system RAM size and
warn out as parse_crashkernel_mem() do it if so.
After this patch, it fails and there is no above confusing reserve
success info.
Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
---
arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
index bfa2dea95354..5d66a4937fcd 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
@@ -1381,6 +1381,11 @@ static void __init arch_reserve_crashkernel(void)
if (ret)
return;
+ if (crash_size >= memblock_phys_mem_size()) {
+ pr_warn("Crashkernel: invalid size.");
+ return;
+ }
+
reserve_crashkernel_generic(cmdline, crash_size, crash_base,
low_size, high);
}
--
2.34.1
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:57:01AM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> Similar with x86_32, on Riscv32 Qemu "virt" machine with 1GB memory, the
> crash kernel "crashkernel=4G" is ok as below:
> crashkernel reserved: 0x00000000bf400000 - 0x00000001bf400000 (4096 MB)
>
> The cause is that the crash_size is parsed and printed with "unsigned long
> long" data type which is 8 bytes but allocated used with "phys_addr_t"
> which is 4 bytes in memblock_phys_alloc_range().
>
> Fix it by checking if the crash_size is greater than system RAM size and
> warn out as parse_crashkernel_mem() do it if so.
>
> After this patch, it fails and there is no above confusing reserve
> success info.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> index bfa2dea95354..5d66a4937fcd 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> @@ -1381,6 +1381,11 @@ static void __init arch_reserve_crashkernel(void)
> if (ret)
> return;
>
> + if (crash_size >= memblock_phys_mem_size()) {
> + pr_warn("Crashkernel: invalid size.");
> + return;
> + }
> +
What the point of adding three identical checks right after the call to
parse_crashkernel()?
This check should be there and parse_crashkernel() should return error in
this case.
> reserve_crashkernel_generic(cmdline, crash_size, crash_base,
> low_size, high);
> }
> --
> 2.34.1
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
On 2024/7/22 14:38, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:57:01AM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>> Similar with x86_32, on Riscv32 Qemu "virt" machine with 1GB memory, the
>> crash kernel "crashkernel=4G" is ok as below:
>> crashkernel reserved: 0x00000000bf400000 - 0x00000001bf400000 (4096 MB)
>>
>> The cause is that the crash_size is parsed and printed with "unsigned long
>> long" data type which is 8 bytes but allocated used with "phys_addr_t"
>> which is 4 bytes in memblock_phys_alloc_range().
>>
>> Fix it by checking if the crash_size is greater than system RAM size and
>> warn out as parse_crashkernel_mem() do it if so.
>>
>> After this patch, it fails and there is no above confusing reserve
>> success info.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
>> index bfa2dea95354..5d66a4937fcd 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
>> @@ -1381,6 +1381,11 @@ static void __init arch_reserve_crashkernel(void)
>> if (ret)
>> return;
>>
>> + if (crash_size >= memblock_phys_mem_size()) {
>> + pr_warn("Crashkernel: invalid size.");
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>
> What the point of adding three identical checks right after the call to
> parse_crashkernel()?
>
> This check should be there and parse_crashkernel() should return error in
> this case.
Hi, Mike
How about the folling rough patch?
--- a/kernel/crash_reserve.c
+++ b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
@@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ int __init parse_crashkernel(char *cmdline,
if (high && ret == -ENOENT) {
ret = __parse_crashkernel(cmdline, 0, crash_size,
crash_base, suffix_tbl[SUFFIX_HIGH]);
- if (ret || !*crash_size)
+ if (ret || !*crash_size || crash_size >= system_ram)
return -EINVAL;
/*
@@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ int __init parse_crashkernel(char *cmdline,
*high = true;
}
#endif
- if (!*crash_size)
+ if (!*crash_size || crash_size >= system_ram)
ret = -EINVAL;
>
>> reserve_crashkernel_generic(cmdline, crash_size, crash_base,
>> low_size, high);
>> }
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
>
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 03:08:29PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>
>
> On 2024/7/22 14:38, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:57:01AM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> >> Similar with x86_32, on Riscv32 Qemu "virt" machine with 1GB memory, the
> >> crash kernel "crashkernel=4G" is ok as below:
> >> crashkernel reserved: 0x00000000bf400000 - 0x00000001bf400000 (4096 MB)
> >>
> >> The cause is that the crash_size is parsed and printed with "unsigned long
> >> long" data type which is 8 bytes but allocated used with "phys_addr_t"
> >> which is 4 bytes in memblock_phys_alloc_range().
> >>
> >> Fix it by checking if the crash_size is greater than system RAM size and
> >> warn out as parse_crashkernel_mem() do it if so.
> >>
> >> After this patch, it fails and there is no above confusing reserve
> >> success info.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 5 +++++
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> >> index bfa2dea95354..5d66a4937fcd 100644
> >> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> >> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> >> @@ -1381,6 +1381,11 @@ static void __init arch_reserve_crashkernel(void)
> >> if (ret)
> >> return;
> >>
> >> + if (crash_size >= memblock_phys_mem_size()) {
> >> + pr_warn("Crashkernel: invalid size.");
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> > What the point of adding three identical checks right after the call to
> > parse_crashkernel()?
> >
> > This check should be there and parse_crashkernel() should return error in
> > this case.
>
> Hi, Mike
>
> How about the folling rough patch?
>
> --- a/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> +++ b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ int __init parse_crashkernel(char *cmdline,
> if (high && ret == -ENOENT) {
> ret = __parse_crashkernel(cmdline, 0, crash_size,
> crash_base, suffix_tbl[SUFFIX_HIGH]);
> - if (ret || !*crash_size)
> + if (ret || !*crash_size || crash_size >= system_ram)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /*
> @@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ int __init parse_crashkernel(char *cmdline,
> *high = true;
> }
> #endif
> - if (!*crash_size)
> + if (!*crash_size || crash_size >= system_ram)
> ret = -EINVAL;
>
Why no simply
diff --git a/kernel/crash_reserve.c b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
index 5b2722a93a48..64312709877d 100644
--- a/kernel/crash_reserve.c
+++ b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
@@ -336,6 +336,9 @@ int __init parse_crashkernel(char *cmdline,
if (!*crash_size)
ret = -EINVAL;
+ if (*crash_size >= system_ram)
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+
return ret;
}
> >
> >> reserve_crashkernel_generic(cmdline, crash_size, crash_base,
> >> low_size, high);
> >> }
> >> --
> >> 2.34.1
> >>
> >
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
On 2024/7/22 15:23, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 03:08:29PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024/7/22 14:38, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:57:01AM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>>>> Similar with x86_32, on Riscv32 Qemu "virt" machine with 1GB memory, the
>>>> crash kernel "crashkernel=4G" is ok as below:
>>>> crashkernel reserved: 0x00000000bf400000 - 0x00000001bf400000 (4096 MB)
>>>>
>>>> The cause is that the crash_size is parsed and printed with "unsigned long
>>>> long" data type which is 8 bytes but allocated used with "phys_addr_t"
>>>> which is 4 bytes in memblock_phys_alloc_range().
>>>>
>>>> Fix it by checking if the crash_size is greater than system RAM size and
>>>> warn out as parse_crashkernel_mem() do it if so.
>>>>
>>>> After this patch, it fails and there is no above confusing reserve
>>>> success info.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 5 +++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
>>>> index bfa2dea95354..5d66a4937fcd 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
>>>> @@ -1381,6 +1381,11 @@ static void __init arch_reserve_crashkernel(void)
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> return;
>>>>
>>>> + if (crash_size >= memblock_phys_mem_size()) {
>>>> + pr_warn("Crashkernel: invalid size.");
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>
>>> What the point of adding three identical checks right after the call to
>>> parse_crashkernel()?
>>>
>>> This check should be there and parse_crashkernel() should return error in
>>> this case.
>>
>> Hi, Mike
>>
>> How about the folling rough patch?
>>
>> --- a/kernel/crash_reserve.c
>> +++ b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
>> @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ int __init parse_crashkernel(char *cmdline,
>> if (high && ret == -ENOENT) {
>> ret = __parse_crashkernel(cmdline, 0, crash_size,
>> crash_base, suffix_tbl[SUFFIX_HIGH]);
>> - if (ret || !*crash_size)
>> + if (ret || !*crash_size || crash_size >= system_ram)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ int __init parse_crashkernel(char *cmdline,
>> *high = true;
>> }
>> #endif
>> - if (!*crash_size)
>> + if (!*crash_size || crash_size >= system_ram)
>> ret = -EINVAL;
>>
>
> Why no simply
>
> diff --git a/kernel/crash_reserve.c b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> index 5b2722a93a48..64312709877d 100644
> --- a/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> +++ b/kernel/crash_reserve.c
> @@ -336,6 +336,9 @@ int __init parse_crashkernel(char *cmdline,
> if (!*crash_size)
> ret = -EINVAL;
>
> + if (*crash_size >= system_ram)
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> return ret;
This is good, thank you!
> }
>
>
>>>
>>>> reserve_crashkernel_generic(cmdline, crash_size, crash_base,
>>>> low_size, high);
>>>> }
>>>> --
>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>
>>>
>
On 2024/7/22 14:38, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:57:01AM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>> Similar with x86_32, on Riscv32 Qemu "virt" machine with 1GB memory, the
>> crash kernel "crashkernel=4G" is ok as below:
>> crashkernel reserved: 0x00000000bf400000 - 0x00000001bf400000 (4096 MB)
>>
>> The cause is that the crash_size is parsed and printed with "unsigned long
>> long" data type which is 8 bytes but allocated used with "phys_addr_t"
>> which is 4 bytes in memblock_phys_alloc_range().
>>
>> Fix it by checking if the crash_size is greater than system RAM size and
>> warn out as parse_crashkernel_mem() do it if so.
>>
>> After this patch, it fails and there is no above confusing reserve
>> success info.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
>> index bfa2dea95354..5d66a4937fcd 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
>> @@ -1381,6 +1381,11 @@ static void __init arch_reserve_crashkernel(void)
>> if (ret)
>> return;
>>
>> + if (crash_size >= memblock_phys_mem_size()) {
>> + pr_warn("Crashkernel: invalid size.");
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>
> What the point of adding three identical checks right after the call to
> parse_crashkernel()?
Maybe you are right, the original version checks in parse_crashkernel
(), but there's a problem.
>
> This check should be there and parse_crashkernel() should return error in
> this case.
Thank you very much, I'll fix it like this in v5.
>
>> reserve_crashkernel_generic(cmdline, crash_size, crash_base,
>> low_size, high);
>> }
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
>
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.