Hi Pingfan, Philipp, Thank you for reviewing and testing this, applied. https://github.com/makedumpfile/makedumpfile/commit/6d0d95ecc04a70f8448d562ff0fbbae237f5c929 Kazu -----Original Message----- > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 7:58 AM HAGIO KAZUHITO(萩尾 一仁) > <k-hagio-ab@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Currently get_mem_section() validates if SYMBOL(mem_section) is the address > > of the mem_section array first. But there was a report that the first > > validation wrongly returned TRUE with -x vmlinux and SPARSEMEM_EXTREME > > (4.15+) on s390x. This leads to crash failing statup with the following > > seek error: > > > > crash: seek error: kernel virtual address: 67fffc2800 type: "memory section root table" > > > > Skip the first validation when satisfying the conditions. > > > > Reported-by: Dave Wysochanski <dwysocha@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Kazuhito Hagio <k-hagio-ab@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > makedumpfile.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/makedumpfile.c b/makedumpfile.c > > index a2f45c84cee3..65d1c7c2f02c 100644 > > --- a/makedumpfile.c > > +++ b/makedumpfile.c > > @@ -3698,6 +3698,22 @@ validate_mem_section(unsigned long *mem_sec, > > return ret; > > } > > > > +/* > > + * SYMBOL(mem_section) varies with the combination of memory model and > > + * its source: > > + * > > + * SPARSEMEM > > + * vmcoreinfo: address of mem_section root array > > + * -x vmlinux: address of mem_section root array > > + * > > + * SPARSEMEM_EXTREME v1 > > + * vmcoreinfo: address of mem_section root array > > + * -x vmlinux: address of mem_section root array > > + * > > + * SPARSEMEM_EXTREME v2 (with 83e3c48729d9 and a0b1280368d1) 4.15+ > > + * vmcoreinfo: address of mem_section root array > > + * -x vmlinux: address of pointer to mem_section root array > > + */ > > static int > > get_mem_section(unsigned int mem_section_size, unsigned long *mem_maps, > > unsigned int num_section) > > @@ -3710,12 +3726,27 @@ get_mem_section(unsigned int mem_section_size, unsigned long *mem_maps, > > strerror(errno)); > > return FALSE; > > } > > + > > + /* > > + * There was a report that the first validation wrongly returned TRUE > > + * with -x vmlinux and SPARSEMEM_EXTREME v2 on s390x, so skip it. > > + * Howerver, leave the fallback validation as it is for the -i option. > > + */ > > + if (is_sparsemem_extreme() && info->name_vmlinux) { > > + unsigned long flag = 0; > > + if (get_symbol_type_name("mem_section", DWARF_INFO_GET_SYMBOL_TYPE, > > + NULL, &flag) > > + && !(flag & TYPE_ARRAY)) > > + goto skip_1st_validation; > > + } > > + > > ret = validate_mem_section(mem_sec, SYMBOL(mem_section), > > mem_section_size, mem_maps, num_section); > > > > if (!ret && is_sparsemem_extreme()) { > > unsigned long mem_section_ptr; > > > > +skip_1st_validation: > > if (!readmem(VADDR, SYMBOL(mem_section), &mem_section_ptr, > > sizeof(mem_section_ptr))) > > goto out; > > -- > > 2.27.0 > > > Discussed with Kazu off-list, and with his nice help, I got clear why > he drops V1. > > Hence, > Reviewed-by: Pingfan Liu <piliu@xxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
