Re: [PATCH v2] arm64/kdump: pass dm-crypt keys to kdump kernel

On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 09:05:49AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 02:22:30PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:

quoted

CONFIG_CRASH_DM_CRYPT has been introduced to support LUKS-encrypted
device dump target by addressing two challenges [1],
 - Kdump kernel may not be able to decrypt the LUKS partition. For some
   machines, a system administrator may not have a chance to enter the
   password to decrypt the device in kdump initramfs after the 1st kernel
   crashes

 - LUKS2 by default use the memory-hard Argon2 key derivation function
   which is quite memory-consuming compared to the limited memory reserved
   for kdump.

To also enable this feature for ARM64, we only need to add device tree
property dmcryptkeys [2] as similar to elfcorehdr to pass the memory
address of the stored info of dm-crypt keys to the kdump kernel.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250502011246.99238-1-coxu@redhat.com/ (local)
[2] https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/pull/181

Cc: Arnaud Lefebvre <redacted>
Cc: Baoquan he <redacted>
Cc: Dave Young <redacted>
Cc: Kairui Song <redacted>
Cc: Pingfan Liu <redacted>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Coiby Xu <redacted>
---
v2
- Krzysztof
  - Use imperative mood for commit message
  - Add dt-schema ABI Documentation
- Don't print dm-crypt keys address via pr_debug

Your changelog should explicitly document that this has external
dependency on dtschema pull request, so that maintainers know that.

Thanks for the lightning-fast reply!

And thanks for the reminder! I didn't know the dtschema pull request is
regarded as a dependency. Currently, I only add the dtschema pull
request URL to the commit message. I'll also include it in the
changelog.

Also, in the future:
Do not attach (thread) your patchsets to some other threads (unrelated
or older versions). This buries them deep in the mailbox and might
interfere with applying entire sets. See also:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.16-rc2/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L830

Thanks for pointing me to the above documentation! I thought adding
In-Reply-To to the V1 patch can provide better context since it's a
single patch. It seems this is not true for Devicetree. Is it because of
the documentation change thus we should treat it more like a multi-patch
series?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

-- 
Best regards,
Coiby