On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 06:11:15PM +0100, James Morse wrote:

Hi Akashi,

On 25/04/18 07:26, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:

quoted

Enabling crash dump (kdump) includes
* prepare contents of ELF header of a core dump file, /proc/vmcore,
  using crash_prepare_elf64_headers(), and
* add two device tree properties, "linux,usable-memory-range" and
  "linux,elfcorehdr", which represent repsectively a memory range

(Nit: respectively)

Will fix.

quoted

  to be used by crash dump kernel and the header's location

quoted

 arch/arm64/include/asm/kexec.h         |   4 +
 arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c        |   9 +-
 arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c | 202 +++++++++++++++++++++++++

In this patch, machine_kexec_file.c gains its own private fdt array encoder.

See below.

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c
index 37c0a9dc2e47..ec674f4d267c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c

@@ -76,6 +81,78 @@ int arch_kexec_walk_mem(struct kexec_buf *kbuf,
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int __init arch_kexec_file_init(void)
+{
+	/* Those values are used later on loading the kernel */
+	__dt_root_addr_cells = dt_root_addr_cells;
+	__dt_root_size_cells = dt_root_size_cells;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+late_initcall(arch_kexec_file_init);

If we need these is it worth taking them out of __initdata? I note they've been
'temporary' for quite a long time.

I think that I had some reason that I didn't do that, but don't remember now.
If there's no problem, I will take your suggestion.

quoted

+
+#define FDT_ALIGN(x, a)	(((x) + (a) - 1) & ~((a) - 1))
+#define FDT_TAGALIGN(x)	(FDT_ALIGN((x), FDT_TAGSIZE))
+
+static int fdt_prop_len(const char *prop_name, int len)
+{
+	return (strlen(prop_name) + 1) +
+		sizeof(struct fdt_property) +
+		FDT_TAGALIGN(len);
+}

This stuff should really be in libfdt.h  Those macros come from
libfdt_internal.h, so we're probably doing something wrong here.

quoted

+static bool cells_size_fitted(unsigned long base, unsigned long size)
+{
+	/* if *_cells >= 2, cells can hold 64-bit values anyway */
+	if ((__dt_root_addr_cells == 1) && (base >= (1ULL << 32)))
+		return false;
+
+	if ((__dt_root_size_cells == 1) && (size >= (1ULL << 32)))
+		return false;

Using '> U32_MAX' here may be more readable.

OK

quoted

+	return true;
+}
+
+static void fill_property(void *buf, u64 val64, int cells)
+{
+	u32 val32;
+
+	if (cells == 1) {
+		val32 = cpu_to_fdt32((u32)val64);
+		memcpy(buf, &val32, sizeof(val32));
+	} else {

quoted

+		memset(buf, 0, cells * sizeof(u32) - sizeof(u64));
+		buf += cells * sizeof(u32) - sizeof(u64);

Is this trying to clear the 'top' cells and shuffle the pointer to point at the
'bottom' 2? I'm pretty sure this isn't endian safe.

Do we really expect a system to have #address-cells > 2?

I don't know, but just for safety.

quoted

+		val64 = cpu_to_fdt64(val64);
+		memcpy(buf, &val64, sizeof(val64));
+	}
+}
+
+static int fdt_setprop_range(void *fdt, int nodeoffset, const char *name,
+				unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)

(the device-tree spec describes a 'ranges' property, which had me confused. This
is encoding a prop-encoded-array)

Should we rename it to, say, fdt_setprop_reg()?

quoted

+{
+	void *buf, *prop;
+	size_t buf_size;
+	int result;
+
+	buf_size = (__dt_root_addr_cells + __dt_root_size_cells) * sizeof(u32);
+	prop = buf = vmalloc(buf_size);

virtual memory allocation for something less than PAGE_SIZE?

I've never cared about that. Let me think again.

quoted

+	if (!buf)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	fill_property(prop, addr, __dt_root_addr_cells);
+	prop += __dt_root_addr_cells * sizeof(u32);
+
+	fill_property(prop, size, __dt_root_size_cells);
+
+	result = fdt_setprop(fdt, nodeoffset, name, buf, buf_size);
+
+	vfree(buf);
+
+	return result;
+}

Doesn't this stuff belong in libfdt? I guess there is no 'add array element' api
because this the first time we've wanted to create a node with more than
key=fixed-size-value.

I don't think this belongs in arch C code. Do we have a plan for getting libfdt
to support encoding prop-arrays? Can we put it somewhere anyone else duplicating
this will find it, until we can (re)move it?

I will temporarily move all fdt-related stuff to a separate file, but

I have no idea how that happens... it looks like the devicetree list is the
place to ask.

should we always sync with the original dtc/libfdt repository?

quoted

 static int setup_dtb(struct kimage *image,
 		unsigned long initrd_load_addr, unsigned long initrd_len,
 		char *cmdline, unsigned long cmdline_len,

@@ -88,10 +165,26 @@ static int setup_dtb(struct kimage *image,
 	int range_len;
 	int ret;
 
+	/* check ranges against root's #address-cells and #size-cells */
+	if (image->type == KEXEC_TYPE_CRASH &&
+		(!cells_size_fitted(image->arch.elf_load_addr,
+				image->arch.elf_headers_sz) ||
+		 !cells_size_fitted(crashk_res.start,
+				crashk_res.end - crashk_res.start + 1))) {
+		pr_err("Crash memory region doesn't fit into DT's root cell sizes.\n");
+		ret = -EINVAL;
+		goto out_err;
+	}

To check I've understood this properly: This can happen if the firmware provided
a DTB with 32bit address/size cells, but at least some of the memory requires 64
bit address/size cells. This could only happen on a UEFI system where the
firmware-DTB doesn't describe memory. ACPI-only systems would have the EFIstub DT.

Probably, yes. I assumed the case where #address-cells and #size-cells
were just missing in fdt.

quoted

 	/* duplicate dt blob */
 	buf_size = fdt_totalsize(initial_boot_params);
 	range_len = (__dt_root_addr_cells + __dt_root_size_cells) * sizeof(u32);
 
+	if (image->type == KEXEC_TYPE_CRASH)
+		buf_size += fdt_prop_len("linux,elfcorehdr", range_len)
+				+ fdt_prop_len("linux,usable-memory-range",
+								range_len);

                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

quoted

+
 	if (initrd_load_addr)
 		buf_size += fdt_prop_len("linux,initrd-start", sizeof(u64))
 				+ fdt_prop_len("linux,initrd-end", sizeof(u64));

@@ -113,6 +206,23 @@ static int setup_dtb(struct kimage *image,
 	if (nodeoffset < 0)
 		goto out_err;
 
+	if (image->type == KEXEC_TYPE_CRASH) {
+		/* add linux,elfcorehdr */
+		ret = fdt_setprop_range(buf, nodeoffset, "linux,elfcorehdr",
+				image->arch.elf_load_addr,
+				image->arch.elf_headers_sz);
+		if (ret)
+			goto out_err;
+
+		/* add linux,usable-memory-range */
+		ret = fdt_setprop_range(buf, nodeoffset,
+				"linux,usable-memory-range",
+				crashk_res.start,
+				crashk_res.end - crashk_res.start + 1);

Don't you need to add "linux,usable-memory-range" to the buf_size estimate?

I think the code exists. See above.

quoted

+		if (ret)
+			goto out_err;
+	}

quoted

@@ -148,17 +258,109 @@ static int setup_dtb(struct kimage *image,

quoted

+static struct crash_mem *get_crash_memory_ranges(void)
+{
+	unsigned int nr_ranges;
+	struct crash_mem *cmem;
+
+	nr_ranges = 1; /* for exclusion of crashkernel region */
+	walk_system_ram_res(0, -1, &nr_ranges, get_nr_ranges_callback);
+
+	cmem = vmalloc(sizeof(struct crash_mem) +
+			sizeof(struct crash_mem_range) * nr_ranges);
+	if (!cmem)
+		return NULL;
+
+	cmem->max_nr_ranges = nr_ranges;
+	cmem->nr_ranges = 0;
+	walk_system_ram_res(0, -1, cmem, add_mem_range_callback);
+
+	/* Exclude crashkernel region */
+	if (crash_exclude_mem_range(cmem, crashk_res.start, crashk_res.end)) {
+		vfree(cmem);
+		return NULL;
+	}
+
+	return cmem;
+}

Could this function be included in prepare_elf_headers() so that the alloc() and
free() occur together.

Or aiming that arm64 and x86 have similar-look code?

quoted

+static int prepare_elf_headers(void **addr, unsigned long *sz)
+{
+	struct crash_mem *cmem;
+	int ret = 0;
+
+	cmem = get_crash_memory_ranges();
+	if (!cmem)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	ret =  crash_prepare_elf64_headers(cmem, true, addr, sz);
+
+	vfree(cmem);

quoted

+	return ret;
+}

All this is moving memory-range information from core-code's
walk_system_ram_res() into core-code's struct crash_mem, and excluding
crashk_res, which again is accessible to the core code.

It looks like this is duplicated in arch/x86 and arch/arm64 because arm64
doesn't have a second 'crashk_low_res' region, and always wants elf64, instead
of when IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64).
If we can abstract just those two, more of this could be moved to core code
where powerpc can make use of it if they want to support kdump with
kexec_file_load().

But, its getting late for cross-architecture dependencies, lets put that on the
for-later list. (assuming there isn't a powerpc-kdump series out there adding a
third copy of this)

Sure. X86 code has so many exceptional lines in the code :)

Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI

Thanks,

James