On Wed, May 03 2023 at 18:41, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> In the patch 'kexec: exclude elfcorehdr from the segment digest'
See reply to 8/8
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index 53bab123a8ee..80538524c494 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -2119,6 +2119,19 @@ config CRASH_DUMP
> (CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y).
> For more details see Documentation/admin-guide/kdump/kdump.rst
>
> +config CRASH_HOTPLUG
> + bool "Update the crash elfcorehdr on system configuration changes"
> + default y
> + depends on CRASH_DUMP && (HOTPLUG_CPU || MEMORY_HOTPLUG)
> + help
> + Enable direct update to the crash elfcorehdr (which contains
> + the list of CPUs and memory regions to be dumped upon a crash)
> + in response to hot plug/unplug or online/offline of CPUs or
> + memory. This is a much more advanced approach than userspace
> + attempting that.
> +
> + If unsure, say Y.
Why is this config an X86 specific thing?
Neither CRASH_DUMP nor HOTPLUG_CPU nor MEMORY_HOTPLUG are in any way X86
specific at all. So why can't you stick that into a place where it can
be reused by other architectures?
It's not rocket science to do
+ depends on WANTS_CRASH_HOTPLUG && CRASH_DUMP && (HOTPLUG_CPU || MEMORY_HOTPLUG)
or something like that. It's so tiring to have x86 Kconfig be the dump
ground for the initial implementation, then having the sh*t copied to
every other architecture and the cleanup is left to the maintainers.
It's not rocket science to differentiate between a real architecture
specific option and a generally useful option in the first place, right?
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CRASH_HOTPLUG
> + /*
> + * Ensure the elfcorehdr segment large enough for hotplug changes.
> + * Account for VMCOREINFO and kernel_map and maximum CPUs.
Neither the first line nor the second one qualifies as parseable sentences.
> +/**
> + * arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event() - Handle hotplug elfcorehdr changes
> + * @image: the active struct kimage
What is an active struct kimage?
> + *
> + * The new elfcorehdr is prepared in a kernel buffer, and then it is
> + * written on top of the existing/old elfcorehdr.
-ENOPARSE
> + */
> +void arch_crash_handle_hotplug_event(struct kimage *image)
> +{
> + void *elfbuf = NULL, *old_elfcorehdr;
> + unsigned long nr_mem_ranges;
> + unsigned long mem, memsz;
> + unsigned long elfsz = 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * Create the new elfcorehdr reflecting the changes to CPU and/or
> + * memory resources.
> + */
> + if (prepare_elf_headers(image, &elfbuf, &elfsz, &nr_mem_ranges)) {
> + pr_err("unable to prepare elfcore headers");
> + goto out;
So this can fail. Why is there just a pr_err() and no return value which
tells the caller that this failed?
> + /*
> + * Copy new elfcorehdr over the old elfcorehdr at destination.
> + */
> + old_elfcorehdr = kmap_local_page(pfn_to_page(mem >> PAGE_SHIFT));
> + if (!old_elfcorehdr) {
> + pr_err("updating elfcorehdr failed\n");
How hard is it to write an error message which is clearly describing the
problem?
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
