lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 06/11] arm64: kexec_file: allow for loading Image-format kernel
From
Date
Hi Akashi,

On 15/05/18 06:13, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 06:07:06PM +0100, James Morse wrote:
>> On 07/05/18 08:21, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 06:46:11PM +0100, James Morse wrote:
>>>> On 25/04/18 07:26, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>>>> This patch provides kexec_file_ops for "Image"-format kernel. In this
>>>>> implementation, a binary is always loaded with a fixed offset identified
>>>>> in text_offset field of its header.
>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kexec.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kexec.h
>>>>> index e4de1223715f..3cba4161818a 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kexec.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kexec.h

>>>> Could we check branch_code is non-zero, and text-offset points within image-size?
>>>
>>> We could do it, but I don't think this check is very useful.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We could check that this platform supports the page-size/endian config that this
>>>> Image was built with... We get a message from the EFI stub if the page-size
>>>> can't be supported, it would be nice to do the same here (as we can).
>>>
>>> There is no restriction on page-size or endianness for kexec.
>>
>> No, but it won't boot if the hardware doesn't support it. The kernel will spin
>> at a magic address that is, difficult, to debug without JTAG. The bug report
>> will be "it didn't boot".
>
> OK.
> Added sanity checks for cpu features, endianness as well as page size.
>
>>
>>> What will be the purpose of this check?
>>
>> These values are in the header so that the bootloader can check them, then print
>> a meaningful error. Here, kexec_file_load() is playing the part of the bootloader.

>> I'm assuming kexec_file_load() can only be used to kexec linux... unlike regular
>> kexec. Is this where I'm going wrong?

Trying to work this out for myself: we can't support any UEFI application as we
can't give it the boot-services environment, so I'm pretty sure
kexec_file_load() must be linux-specific.

Can we state somewhere that we only expect arm64 linux to be booted with
kexec_file_load()? Its not clear from the kconfig text, which refers to kexec,
which explicitly states it can boot other OS. But for kexec_file_load() we're
following the kernel's booting.txt.


>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 000000000000..4dd524ad6611
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
>>>>
>>>>> +static void *image_load(struct kimage *image,
>>>>> + char *kernel, unsigned long kernel_len,
>>>>> + char *initrd, unsigned long initrd_len,
>>>>> + char *cmdline, unsigned long cmdline_len)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct kexec_buf kbuf;
>>>>> + struct arm64_image_header *h = (struct arm64_image_header *)kernel;
>>>>> + unsigned long text_offset;
>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Load the kernel */
>>>>> + kbuf.image = image;
>>>>> + kbuf.buf_min = 0;
>>>>> + kbuf.buf_max = ULONG_MAX;
>>>>> + kbuf.top_down = false;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + kbuf.buffer = kernel;
>>>>> + kbuf.bufsz = kernel_len;
>>>>> + kbuf.memsz = le64_to_cpu(h->image_size);
>>>>> + text_offset = le64_to_cpu(h->text_offset);
>>>>> + kbuf.buf_align = SZ_2M;
>>>>
>>>>> + /* Adjust kernel segment with TEXT_OFFSET */
>>>>> + kbuf.memsz += text_offset;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + ret = kexec_add_buffer(&kbuf);
>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + image->arch.kern_segment = image->nr_segments - 1;
>>>>
>>>> You only seem to use kern_segment here, and in load_other_segments() called
>>>> below. Could it not be a local variable passed in? Instead of arch-specific data
>>>> we keep forever?
>>>
>>> No, kern_segment is also used in load_other_segments() in machine_kexec_file.c.
>>> To optimize memory hole allocation logic in locate_mem_hole_callback(),
>>> we need to know the exact range of kernel image (start and end).
>>
>> That's the second user. My badly-made point is one calls the other, but passes
>> the data via some until-kexec lifetime struct. (its not important, just an
>> indicator this worked differently in the past and hasn't been cleaned up).
>> I meant something like [0].
>
> OK, but instead of adding kern_seg, I want to change the interface to:
>
> | extern int load_other_segments(struct kimage *image,
> | unsigned long kernel_load_addr, unsigned long kernel_size,
> | char *initrd, unsigned long initrd_len,
> | char *cmdline, unsigned long cmdline_len);
>
> This way, we will in future be able to address an issue I mentioned in
> my previous e-mail. (If we support vmlinux, the kernel occupies two segments
> for text and data, respectively.)

Aha, its not from old-stuff, its for future-stuff!


James

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-15 19:18    [W:0.130 / U:4.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site