Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 2/11/21 5:09 PM, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>> There's actually a complication that I just noticed and needs to be
>> addressed. More below.
>>
>
> <...>
>
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * of_kexec_alloc_and_setup_fdt - Alloc and setup a new Flattened Device Tree
>>> + *
>>> + * @image: kexec image being loaded.
>>> + * @initrd_load_addr: Address where the next initrd will be loaded.
>>> + * @initrd_len: Size of the next initrd, or 0 if there will be none.
>>> + * @cmdline: Command line for the next kernel, or NULL if there will
>>> + * be none.
>>> + *
>>> + * Return: fdt on success, or NULL errno on error.
>>> + */
>>> +void *of_kexec_alloc_and_setup_fdt(const struct kimage *image,
>>> + unsigned long initrd_load_addr,
>>> + unsigned long initrd_len,
>>> + const char *cmdline)
>>> +{
>>> + void *fdt;
>>> + int ret, chosen_node;
>>> + const void *prop;
>>> + unsigned long fdt_size;
>>> +
>>> + fdt_size = fdt_totalsize(initial_boot_params) +
>>> + (cmdline ? strlen(cmdline) : 0) +
>>> + FDT_EXTRA_SPACE;
>> Just adding 4 KB to initial_boot_params won't be enough for crash
>> kernels on ppc64. The current powerpc code doubles the size of
>> initial_boot_params (which is normally larger than 4 KB) and even that
>> isn't enough. A patch was added to powerpc/next today which uses a more
>> precise (but arch-specific) formula:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/161243826811.119001.14083048209224609814.stgit@hbathini/
>> So I believe we need a hook here where architectures can provide their
>> own specific calculation for the size of the fdt. Perhaps a weakly
>> defined function providing a default implementation which an
>> arch-specific file can override (a la arch_kexec_kernel_image_load())?
>> Then the powerpc specific hook would be the kexec_fdt_totalsize_ppc64()
>> function from the patch I linked above.
>>
>
> Do you think it'd better to add "fdt_size" parameter to
> of_kexec_alloc_and_setup_fdt() so that the caller can provide the
> desired FDT buffer size?
Yes, that is actually simpler and better than my idea. :-)
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
