On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 23:59:07 +0300 Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 04:41:24PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 07:11:56PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:23:07 -0700 > > > Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Do we need to involve e820 at all? I think it might be possible to just > > > > have pstore call request_mem_region() very early? Or does KASLR make > > > > that unstable? > > > > > > Yeah, would that give the same physical memory each boot, and can we > > > guarantee that KASLR will not map the kernel over the previous location? > > > > Hm, no, for physical memory it needs to get excluded very early, which > > means e820. > > Whatever memory is reserved in arch/x86/kernel/e820.c, that happens after > kaslr, so to begin with, a new memmap parameter should be also added to > parse_memmap in arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c to ensure the same > physical address will be available after KASLR. But doesn't KASLR only affect virtual memory not physical memory? This just makes sure the physical memory it finds will not be used by the system. Then ramoops does the mapping via vmap() I believe, to get a virtual address to access the physical address. > > More generally, memmap= is x86 specific and a bit of a hack. > Why won't you add a new kernel parameter that will be parsed in, say, > mm/mm_init.c and will create the mmap_map (or whatever it will be named) > and reserve that memory in memblock rather than in e820? Hmm, I only did this approach because I'm familiar with the memmap hack and extended upon it. But yeah, if I can do the same thing in mm_init.c it could possibly work for all archs. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll play with that. > > This still will require update to arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c of > course. Oh, is the issue if KASLR maps the kernel over this location, then we lose it? We need to tell KASLR not to touch this location? -- Steve
