[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RESEND PATCH v5 2/5] arm64/crash_core: Export TCR_EL1.T1SZ in vmcoreinfo
Hi James,

On 12/12/2019 04:02 PM, James Morse wrote:
> Hi Bhupesh,
> On 29/11/2019 19:59, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
>> vabits_actual variable on arm64 indicates the actual VA space size,
>> and allows a single binary to support both 48-bit and 52-bit VA
>> spaces.
>> If the ARMv8.2-LVA optional feature is present, and we are running
>> with a 64KB page size; then it is possible to use 52-bits of address
>> space for both userspace and kernel addresses. However, any kernel
>> binary that supports 52-bit must also be able to fall back to 48-bit
>> at early boot time if the hardware feature is not present.
>> Since TCR_EL1.T1SZ indicates the size offset of the memory region
>> addressed by TTBR1_EL1 (and hence can be used for determining the
>> vabits_actual value) it makes more sense to export the same in
>> vmcoreinfo rather than vabits_actual variable, as the name of the
>> variable can change in future kernel versions, but the architectural
>> constructs like TCR_EL1.T1SZ can be used better to indicate intended
>> specific fields to user-space.
>> User-space utilities like makedumpfile and crash-utility, need to
>> read/write this value from/to vmcoreinfo
> (write?)

Yes, also write so that the vmcoreinfo from an (crashing) arm64 system
can be used for analysis of the root-cause of panic/crash on say an
x86_64 host using utilities like crash-utility/gdb.

>> for determining if a virtual address lies in the linear map range.
> I think this is a fragile example. The debugger shouldn't need to know this.

Well that the current user-space utility design, so I am not sure we can
tweak that too much.

>> The user-space computation for determining whether an address lies in
>> the linear map range is the same as we have in kernel-space:
>> #define __is_lm_address(addr) (!(((u64)addr) & BIT(vabits_actual - 1)))
> This was changed with 14c127c957c1 ("arm64: mm: Flip kernel VA space"). If user-space
> tools rely on 'knowing' the kernel memory layout, they must have to constantly be fixed
> and updated. This is a poor argument for adding this to something that ends up as ABI.

See above. The user-space has to rely on some ABI/guaranteed
hardware-symbols which can be used for 'determining' the kernel memory

> I think a better argument is walking the kernel page tables from the core dump.
> Core code's vmcoreinfo exports the location of the kernel page tables, but in the example
> above you can't walk them without knowing how T1SZ was configured.

Sure, both makedumpfile and crash-utility (which walks the kernel page
tables from the core dump) use this (and similar) information currently
in the user-space.

> On older kernels, user-space that needs this would have to assume the value it computes
> from VA_BITs (also in vmcoreinfo) is the value in use.

Yes, backward compatibility has been handled in the user-space already.

> ---%<---
>> I have sent out user-space patches for makedumpfile and crash-utility
>> to add features for obtaining vabits_actual value from TCR_EL1.T1SZ (see
>> [0] and [1]).
>> Akashi reported that he was able to use this patchset and the user-space
>> changes to get user-space working fine with the 52-bit kernel VA
>> changes (see [2]).
>> [0].
>> [1].
>> [2].
> ---%<---
> This probably belongs in the cover letter instead of the commit log.


> (From-memory: one of vmcore/kcore is virtually addressed, the other physically. Does this
> fix your poblem in both cases?)
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/crash_core.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/crash_core.c
>> index ca4c3e12d8c5..f78310ba65ea 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/crash_core.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/crash_core.c
>> @@ -7,6 +7,13 @@
>> #include <linux/crash_core.h>
>> #include <asm/memory.h>
> You need to include asm/sysreg.h for read_sysreg(), and asm/pgtable-hwdef.h for the macros
> you added.

Ok. Will check as I did not get any compilation errors without the same
and build-bot also did not raise a flag for the missing include files.

>> +static inline u64 get_tcr_el1_t1sz(void);

> Why do you need to do this?

Without this I was getting a missing declaration error, while compiling
the code.

>> +static inline u64 get_tcr_el1_t1sz(void)
>> +{
>> + return (read_sysreg(tcr_el1) & TCR_T1SZ_MASK) >> TCR_T1SZ_OFFSET;
>> +}
> (We don't modify this one, and its always the same one very CPU, so this is fine.
> This function is only called once when the stringy vmcoreinfo elf_note is created...)


>> void arch_crash_save_vmcoreinfo(void)
>> {
>> @@ -15,5 +22,7 @@ void arch_crash_save_vmcoreinfo(void)
>> kimage_voffset);
>> vmcoreinfo_append_str("NUMBER(PHYS_OFFSET)=0x%llx\n",
>> + vmcoreinfo_append_str("NUMBER(tcr_el1_t1sz)=0x%llx\n",
>> + get_tcr_el1_t1sz());
> You document the name as being upper-case.
> The two values either values either side are upper-case.
Ok, will fix this in v6. Thanks for your inputs.

>> vmcoreinfo_append_str("KERNELOFFSET=%lx\n", kaslr_offset());
>> }


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-25 20:03    [W:0.072 / U:11.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site