Hi David,
On 3/27/20 6:52 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> 2. You do the kexec. The kexec kernel will only operate on a reserved
>>> memory region (reserved via e.g., kernel cmdline crashkernel=128M).
>>
>> I think you are merging the kexec and kdump behaviours.
>> (Wrong terminology? The things behind 'kexec -l Image' and 'kexec -p Image')
>
> Oh, I see - I think your example below clarifies things. Something like
> that should go in the cover letter if we end up in this patch being
> required :)
Do you mean the commit message? I think its far too long...
Adding a sentence about the way kexec load works may help, the first paragraph
would read:
| Kexec allows user-space to specify the address that the kexec image should be
| loaded to. Because this memory may be in use, an image loaded for kexec is not
| stored in place, instead its segments are scattered through memory, and are
| re-assembled when needed. In the meantime, the target memory may have been
| removed.
Do you think thats clearer?
> (I missed that the problematic part is "random" addresses passed by user
> space to the kernel, where it wants data to be loaded to on kexec -e)
[...]
>> Load kexec:
>> | root@vm:/sys/devices/system/memory# kexec -l /root/bzImage --reuse-cmdline
>>
>
> I assume this will trigger
>
> kexec_load -> do_kexec_load -> kimage_load_segment ->
> kimage_load_normal_segment -> kimage_alloc_page -> kimage_alloc_pages
>
> Which will just allocate a bunch of pages and mark them reserved.
>
> Now, AFAIKs, all allocations will be unmovable. So none of the kexec
> segment allocations will actually end up on your DIMM (as it is onlined
> online_movable).
>
> So, the loaded image (with its segments) from user won't be problematic
> and not get placed on your DIMM.
>
>
> Now, the problematic part is (via man kexec_load) "mem and memsz specify
> a physical address range that is the target of the copy."
>
> So the place where the image will be "assembled" at when doing the
> reboot. Understood :)
Yup.
[...]
> I wonder if we should instead make the "kexec -e" fail. It tries to
> touch random system memory.
Heh, isn't touching random system memory what kexec does?!
Its all described to user-space as 'System RAM'. Teaching it to probe
/sys/devices/memory/... would require a user-space change.
> Denying to offline MOVABLE memory should be avoided - and what kexec
> does here sounds dangerous to me (allowing it to write random system
> memory).
> Roughly what I am thinking is this:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> index ba1d91e868ca..70c39a5307e5 100644
> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> @@ -1135,6 +1135,10 @@ int kernel_kexec(void)
> error = -EINVAL;
> goto Unlock;
> }
> + if (!kexec_image_validate()) {
> + error = -EINVAL;
> + goto Unlock;
> + }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_JUMP
> if (kexec_image->preserve_context) {
>
>
> kexec_image_validate() would go over all segments and validate that the
> involved pages are actual valid memory (pfn_to_online_page()).
>
> All we have to do is protect from memory hotplug until we switch to the
> new kernel.
(migrate_to_reboot_cpu() can sleep), I think you'd end up with something like
this patch, but only while kexec_in_progress. I don't think letting kexec fail
if the events occur in a different order is good for user-space.
> Will probably need some thought. But it will actually also bail out when
> user space passes wrong physical memory addresses, instead of
> triple-faulting silently.
With this change, the reboot(LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_KEXEC), call would fail. This
thing doesn't usually return, so we're likely to trigger error-handling that has
never run before.
(Last time I debugged one of these, it turned out kexec had taken the network
interfaces down, meaning the nfsroot was no longer accessible)
How can user-space know whether kexec is going to succeed, or fail like this?
Any loaded kexec kernel could secretly be in this broken state.
Can user-space know what caused this to become unreliable? (without reading the
kernel source)
Given kexec can be unloaded by user-space, I think its better to prevent us
getting into the broken state, preferably giving the hint that kexec us using
that memory. The user can 'kexec -u', then retry removing the memory.
I think forbidding the memory-offline is simpler for user-space to deal with.
Thanks,
James
