From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Cc: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] kexec: fix a memory leak in crash_shrink_memory()
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 08:13:00 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZHaQ7qRYWX9FETu6@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230527123439.772-2-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
On 05/27/23 at 08:34pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
> If the value of parameter 'new_size' is in the semi-open and semi-closed
> interval (crashk_res.end - KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN + 1, crashk_res.end], the
> calculation result of ram_res is:
> ram_res->start = crashk_res.end + 1
> ram_res->end = crashk_res.end
If the new_size is smaller than KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN, does it make
any sense except of testing purpose? Do we need to fail this kind of
shrinking, or just shrink all the left crash memory?
> The operation of function insert_resource() fails, and ram_res is not
> added to iomem_resource. As a result, the memory of the control block
> ram_res is leaked.
>
> In fact, on all architectures, the start address and size of crashk_res
> are already aligned by KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN. Therefore, we do not need to
> round up crashk_res.start again. Instead, we should round up 'new_size'
> in advance.
>
> Fixes: 6480e5a09237 ("kdump: add missing RAM resource in crash_shrink_memory()")
> Fixes: 06a7f711246b ("kexec: premit reduction of the reserved memory size")
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
> kernel/kexec_core.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> index 3d578c6fefee385..22acee18195a591 100644
> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> @@ -1122,6 +1122,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
> start = crashk_res.start;
> end = crashk_res.end;
> old_size = (end == 0) ? 0 : end - start + 1;
> + new_size = roundup(new_size, KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN);
> if (new_size >= old_size) {
> ret = (new_size == old_size) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> goto unlock;
> @@ -1133,9 +1134,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
> goto unlock;
> }
>
> - start = roundup(start, KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN);
> - end = roundup(start + new_size, KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN);
> -
> + end = start + new_size;
> crash_free_reserved_phys_range(end, crashk_res.end);
>
> if ((start == end) && (crashk_res.parent != NULL))
> --
> 2.25.1
>
_______________________________________________
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: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Cc: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] kexec: fix a memory leak in crash_shrink_memory()
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 08:13:00 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZHaQ7qRYWX9FETu6@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230527123439.772-2-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
On 05/27/23 at 08:34pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
> If the value of parameter 'new_size' is in the semi-open and semi-closed
> interval (crashk_res.end - KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN + 1, crashk_res.end], the
> calculation result of ram_res is:
> ram_res->start = crashk_res.end + 1
> ram_res->end = crashk_res.end
If the new_size is smaller than KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN, does it make
any sense except of testing purpose? Do we need to fail this kind of
shrinking, or just shrink all the left crash memory?
> The operation of function insert_resource() fails, and ram_res is not
> added to iomem_resource. As a result, the memory of the control block
> ram_res is leaked.
>
> In fact, on all architectures, the start address and size of crashk_res
> are already aligned by KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN. Therefore, we do not need to
> round up crashk_res.start again. Instead, we should round up 'new_size'
> in advance.
>
> Fixes: 6480e5a09237 ("kdump: add missing RAM resource in crash_shrink_memory()")
> Fixes: 06a7f711246b ("kexec: premit reduction of the reserved memory size")
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
> kernel/kexec_core.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> index 3d578c6fefee385..22acee18195a591 100644
> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> @@ -1122,6 +1122,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
> start = crashk_res.start;
> end = crashk_res.end;
> old_size = (end == 0) ? 0 : end - start + 1;
> + new_size = roundup(new_size, KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN);
> if (new_size >= old_size) {
> ret = (new_size == old_size) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> goto unlock;
> @@ -1133,9 +1134,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
> goto unlock;
> }
>
> - start = roundup(start, KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN);
> - end = roundup(start + new_size, KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN);
> -
> + end = start + new_size;
> crash_free_reserved_phys_range(end, crashk_res.end);
>
> if ((start == end) && (crashk_res.parent != NULL))
> --
> 2.25.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-31 0:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-27 12:34 [PATCH 0/6] kexec: enable kexec_crash_size to support two crash kernel regions Zhen Lei
2023-05-27 12:34 ` Zhen Lei
2023-05-27 12:34 ` [PATCH 1/6] kexec: fix a memory leak in crash_shrink_memory() Zhen Lei
2023-05-27 12:34 ` Zhen Lei
2023-05-31 0:13 ` Baoquan He [this message]
2023-05-31 0:13 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-31 1:16 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2023-05-31 1:16 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2023-05-31 7:31 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-31 7:31 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-27 12:34 ` [PATCH 2/6] kexec: delete a useless check " Zhen Lei
2023-05-27 12:34 ` Zhen Lei
2023-05-31 0:17 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-31 0:17 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-31 2:19 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2023-05-31 2:19 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2023-05-31 7:41 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-31 7:41 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-31 8:26 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2023-05-31 8:26 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2023-05-27 12:34 ` [PATCH 3/6] kexec: clear crashk_res if all its memory has been released Zhen Lei
2023-05-27 12:34 ` Zhen Lei
2023-05-31 0:33 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-31 0:33 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-27 12:34 ` [PATCH 4/6] kexec: improve the readability of crash_shrink_memory() Zhen Lei
2023-05-27 12:34 ` Zhen Lei
2023-05-31 7:48 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-31 7:48 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-27 12:34 ` [PATCH 5/6] kexec: add helper __crash_shrink_memory() Zhen Lei
2023-05-27 12:34 ` Zhen Lei
2023-05-28 0:08 ` kernel test robot
2023-05-28 0:08 ` kernel test robot
2023-05-29 0:37 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2023-05-29 0:37 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2023-05-28 1:44 ` kernel test robot
2023-05-28 1:44 ` kernel test robot
2023-05-28 6:26 ` kernel test robot
2023-05-28 6:26 ` kernel test robot
2023-05-31 7:50 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-31 7:50 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-27 12:34 ` [PATCH 6/6] kexec: enable kexec_crash_size to support two crash kernel regions Zhen Lei
2023-05-27 12:34 ` Zhen Lei
2023-05-31 9:53 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-31 9:53 ` Baoquan He
2023-05-31 14:25 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2023-05-31 14:25 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
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=ZHaQ7qRYWX9FETu6@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \
--to=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thunder.leizhen@huawei.com \
/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.