From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com,
dyoung@redhat.com, mingo@kernel.org,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] x86/boot: Add bit fields into xloadflags for 5-level kernel checking
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:02:23 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190211070223.GA2332@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901292059260.1950@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Thanks for reviewing. I was in vacation, sorry for late reply.
On 01/29/19 at 09:05pm, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, Baoquan He wrote:
>
> > Add two bit fields XLF_5LEVEL and XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED for 5-level kernel.
>
> These are not bit fields. These are simple bits.
Indeed, they are only xloadflags bits, will change. Thanks.
>
> > Bit XLF_5LEVEL indicates if 5-level related code is contained
> > in this kernel.
> > Bit XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED indicates if CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL=y is set.
>
> I'm confused.
>
> > - .word XLF0 | XLF1 | XLF23 | XLF4
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL
> > +#define XLF56 (XLF_5LEVEL|XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED)
> > +#else
> > +#define XLF56 XLF_5LEVEL
> > +#endif
> > +#else
> > +#define XLF56 0
> > +#endif
> > +
> > + .word XLF0 | XLF1 | XLF23 | XLF4 | XLF56
>
> So this actually stores the bits, but looking at the following patch which
> fixes the real issue:
>
> > + if (!(header->xloadflags & XLF_5LEVEL) && pgtable_l5_enabled()) {
> > + pr_err("Can not jump to old 4-level kernel from 5-level kernel.\n");
> > + return ret;
> > + }
>
> So what is XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED used for and why does it exist at all?
Yes, this is a little bit confusing. I explained it in the v1 cover
letter:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2018-August/021419.html
As told at above, XLF_5LEVEL marks the new kernel containing 5level
code, while XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED marking the CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL option
enabling. Hence if XLF_5LEVEL is set, XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED not, means it's
new kernel but can't be switched into 5-level.
For kexec_load and kexec_file_load, there's difference in loading
behaviour. kexec_load will search available area top down to put
kernel in system RAM, we need check if the kexec-ed kernel is in
leve-5 paging mode, and limit the loading postion below 64 TB if
not. But for kexec_file_load, it's searching area bottom up to put
kernel, most of time area found below 4G. We don't have worry about the
kexec_file_load interface which implements the loading functionality in
kernel. That's why the XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED bit is not used in this kernel
patch set, I would like to post patch to kexec-tools for kexec_load
after these patches have been accepted.
I ever tried to unify the behavious of these two interfaces on loading
kernel, to make both kexec_load and kexec_file_load search and put
kernel top to down, but that involves many lines of code change, seems
people are worried about it and hesitated to offere ack, I just gave up.
Please check below link:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180718024944.577-1-bhe@redhat.com/T/#u
Sorry for the inconvenience because of my missing explanation.
Thanks
Baoquan
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de,
hpa@zytor.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
dyoung@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] x86/boot: Add bit fields into xloadflags for 5-level kernel checking
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:02:23 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190211070223.GA2332@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901292059260.1950@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Thanks for reviewing. I was in vacation, sorry for late reply.
On 01/29/19 at 09:05pm, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, Baoquan He wrote:
>
> > Add two bit fields XLF_5LEVEL and XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED for 5-level kernel.
>
> These are not bit fields. These are simple bits.
Indeed, they are only xloadflags bits, will change. Thanks.
>
> > Bit XLF_5LEVEL indicates if 5-level related code is contained
> > in this kernel.
> > Bit XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED indicates if CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL=y is set.
>
> I'm confused.
>
> > - .word XLF0 | XLF1 | XLF23 | XLF4
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL
> > +#define XLF56 (XLF_5LEVEL|XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED)
> > +#else
> > +#define XLF56 XLF_5LEVEL
> > +#endif
> > +#else
> > +#define XLF56 0
> > +#endif
> > +
> > + .word XLF0 | XLF1 | XLF23 | XLF4 | XLF56
>
> So this actually stores the bits, but looking at the following patch which
> fixes the real issue:
>
> > + if (!(header->xloadflags & XLF_5LEVEL) && pgtable_l5_enabled()) {
> > + pr_err("Can not jump to old 4-level kernel from 5-level kernel.\n");
> > + return ret;
> > + }
>
> So what is XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED used for and why does it exist at all?
Yes, this is a little bit confusing. I explained it in the v1 cover
letter:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2018-August/021419.html
As told at above, XLF_5LEVEL marks the new kernel containing 5level
code, while XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED marking the CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL option
enabling. Hence if XLF_5LEVEL is set, XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED not, means it's
new kernel but can't be switched into 5-level.
For kexec_load and kexec_file_load, there's difference in loading
behaviour. kexec_load will search available area top down to put
kernel in system RAM, we need check if the kexec-ed kernel is in
leve-5 paging mode, and limit the loading postion below 64 TB if
not. But for kexec_file_load, it's searching area bottom up to put
kernel, most of time area found below 4G. We don't have worry about the
kexec_file_load interface which implements the loading functionality in
kernel. That's why the XLF_5LEVEL_ENABLED bit is not used in this kernel
patch set, I would like to post patch to kexec-tools for kexec_load
after these patches have been accepted.
I ever tried to unify the behavious of these two interfaces on loading
kernel, to make both kexec_load and kexec_file_load search and put
kernel top to down, but that involves many lines of code change, seems
people are worried about it and hesitated to offere ack, I just gave up.
Please check below link:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180718024944.577-1-bhe@redhat.com/T/#u
Sorry for the inconvenience because of my missing explanation.
Thanks
Baoquan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-11 7:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-25 2:28 [PATCH RESEND 0/3] Add restrictions for kexec/kdump jumping between 5-level and 4-level kernel Baoquan He
2019-01-25 2:28 ` Baoquan He
2019-01-25 2:28 ` [PATCH RESEND 1/3] x86/boot: Add bit fields into xloadflags for 5-level kernel checking Baoquan He
2019-01-25 2:28 ` Baoquan He
2019-01-29 20:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-29 20:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-02-11 7:02 ` Baoquan He [this message]
2019-02-11 7:02 ` Baoquan He
2019-02-11 7:40 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/boot: Add xloadflags bits " Baoquan He
2019-02-11 7:40 ` Baoquan He
2019-01-25 2:28 ` [PATCH RESEND 2/3] x86/kexec/64: Error out if try to jump to old 4-level kernel from 5-level kernel Baoquan He
2019-01-25 2:28 ` Baoquan He
2019-01-25 2:28 ` [PATCH RESEND 3/3] x86/kdump/64: Change the upper limit of crashkernel reservation Baoquan He
2019-01-25 2:28 ` Baoquan He
2019-01-25 12:05 ` [PATCH RESEND 0/3] Add restrictions for kexec/kdump jumping between 5-level and 4-level kernel Kirill A. Shutemov
2019-01-25 12:05 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190211070223.GA2332@localhost \
--to=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.