On 01/07/2016 at 01:08 AM, Minfei Huang wrote:
> On 01/06/16 at 05:50pm, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
>> index 819ab3f..cda867d 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/machine_kexec_64.c
>> @@ -536,3 +536,44 @@ overflow:
>> return -ENOEXEC;
>> }
>> #endif /* CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE */
>> +
>> +static int
>> +kexec_mark_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, bool protect)
>> +{
>> + struct page *page;
>> + unsigned int nr_pages;
>> +
>> + /* For physical range: [start, end] */
>> + if (!start || !end || start > end)
>> + return 0;
> Hi, Xunlei.
>
> if (start > end)
> return 0;
If both start and end are zero, we want to return directly, so the two
more check doesn't hurt.
> See the below comment.
>> +
>> + page = pfn_to_page(start >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>> + nr_pages = (end + PAGE_SIZE - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> As I commented in last version, it is better to cover the case if the
> range from start to end acrosses two pages.
right.
>> + if (protect)
>> + return set_pages_ro(page, nr_pages);
>> + else
>> + return set_pages_rw(page, nr_pages);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void kexec_mark_crashkres(bool protect)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long control;
>> +
>> + kexec_mark_range(crashk_low_res.start, crashk_low_res.end, protect);
> Adding the following if test to test crashk_low_res is better. Then we
> do not need to test if start or end is equal to 0 in kexec_mark_range.
>
> if (crashk_low_res.start != crashk_low_res.end) {
> kexec_mark_range(crashk_low_res.start,
> crashk_low_res.end, protect);
> }
The checks in kexec_mark_range() will handle the case, it's not
performance-critical path and will make the code less clean.
>> +
>> + /* Don't touch the control code page used in crash_kexec().*/
>> + control = PFN_PHYS(page_to_pfn(kexec_crash_image->control_code_page));
>> + /* Control code page is located in the 2nd page. */
>> + kexec_mark_range(crashk_res.start, control + PAGE_SIZE - 1, protect);
>> + kexec_mark_range(control + 2 * PAGE_SIZE, crashk_res.end, protect);
> I think it is more readable, if we use MACRO KEXEC_CONTROL_PAGE_SIZE,
> instead of using 2*PAGE_SIZE directly.
OK.
How about the following update:
+static int
+kexec_mark_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, bool protect)
+{
+ struct page *page;
+ unsigned int nr_pages;
+
+ /* For physical range: [start, end] */
+ if (!start || !end || start > end)
+ return 0;
+
+ page = pfn_to_page(start >> PAGE_SHIFT);
+ nr_pages = (end >> PAGE_SHIFT) - (start >> PAGE_SHIFT) + 1;
+ if (protect)
+ return set_pages_ro(page, nr_pages);
+ else
+ return set_pages_rw(page, nr_pages);
+}
+
+static void kexec_mark_crashkres(bool protect)
+{
+ unsigned long control;
+
+ kexec_mark_range(crashk_low_res.start, crashk_low_res.end, protect);
+
+ /* Don't touch the control code page used in crash_kexec().*/
+ control = PFN_PHYS(page_to_pfn(kexec_crash_image->control_code_page));
+ /* Control code page is located in the 2nd page. */
+ kexec_mark_range(crashk_res.start, control + PAGE_SIZE - 1, protect);
+ control += KEXEC_CONTROL_PAGE_SIZE;
+ kexec_mark_range(control, crashk_res.end, protect);
+}
+
+void arch_kexec_protect_crashkres(void)
+{
+ kexec_mark_crashkres(true);
+}
+
+void arch_kexec_unprotect_crashkres(void)
+{
+ kexec_mark_crashkres(false);
+}
> Thanks
> Minfei
>
> _______________________________________________
> kexec mailing list
> kexec at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
