From: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
To: Jay Lan <jlan@sgi.com>
Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] ia64: Order of operations bug in PT_LOAD segment reader
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:25:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081022232519.GC5247@verge.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48FE08CB.5080308@sgi.com>
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:52:27AM -0700, Jay Lan wrote:
> Simon Horman wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> Just got back from vacation. Sorry for late response.
>
> > This bug was discovered by Jay Lan and he also proposed this fix, however
> > thee is some discussion about what if any related changes should be made at
> > the same time.
> >
> > The bug comes about because the break statment was never executed because
> > the if clause would bever be true because the if clause will never be true
> > because & has higher precedence than !=.
> >
> > My position on this is that with the if logic fixed, as per this patch, the
> > break statment and the rest of the while() loop makes sense and should work
> > as intended.
> >
> > As I understand it, Jay's position is that the code should be simplified,
> > after all it never worked as intended.
> >
> > There is a related kernel bug that lead Jay to discover this problem.
> > The kernel bug has been resolved by Tony Luck and was
> > included in Linus's tree between 2.6.27-rc8 and 2.6.27-rc9 as
> > "[IA64] Put the space for cpu0 per-cpu area into .data section".
> >
> > Now that the kernel bug is out of the way, I am providing this patch to
> > continue discussion on what to do on the kexec-tools side of things. I do
> > not intend to apply this patch until there is some conclusion in the
> > discussion between Jay and myself.
>
> I think this patch is not right for two reasons:
> 1) The if-statement below has never proved the correctness of
> its intent because the 'break' statement never got executed
> due to a logic error.
> if (loaded_segments[loaded_segments_num].end !> (phdr->p_paddr & ~(ELF_PAGE_SIZE-1)))
> break;
> 2) With your patch in my testing, the kdump kernel boot hung
> even earlier in a PAL_CALL that was not returned to the kernel.
> I understand that my test case was based on a kernel without
> Tony's latest fix, but that was the only situation we can
> see the if-statement becomes true. I do not know any other
> way to make a memory gap happen. However, when it happens,
> your patch only makes kdump kenrel boot hang earlier.
>
> I still root for my patch because the kdump kernel would boot
> correctly even if a memory gap indeed happened. ;) However,
> if you do not feel comfortable with my patch, i think the best
> alternative is to take out the if-statement above completely.
Point taken, just to clarify, this is the patch you would like merged?
From: Jay Lan <jlan@sgi.com>
IA64: better calculate PT_LOAD segment size
This patch combines consecutive PL_LOAD segments into one.
The end address of the last PL_LOAD segment, calculated by
adding p_memsz to p_paddr & rounded up to ELF_PAGE_SIZE,
will be the end address of this loaded_segments[] entry.
This patch fixes the kdump kernel MCA problem caused by under-
allocation of memory and a "kdump broken on ALtix 350" problem
reported by Bernhard Walle.
Simon, this patch replaces my previous patch I submitted on the
underallocation issue.
Signed-off-by: Jay Lan <jlan@sgi.com>
---
kexec/arch/ia64/crashdump-ia64.c | 15 ++++++++-------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Index: kexec-tools/kexec/arch/ia64/crashdump-ia64.c
=================================--- kexec-tools.orig/kexec/arch/ia64/crashdump-ia64.c 2008-09-19 14:33:07.593344017 -0700
+++ kexec-tools/kexec/arch/ia64/crashdump-ia64.c 2008-09-19 17:39:03.732928237 -0700
@@ -86,19 +86,20 @@ static void add_loaded_segments_info(str
loaded_segments[loaded_segments_num].end loaded_segments[loaded_segments_num].start;
+ /* Consolidate consecutive PL_LOAD segments into one.
+ * The end addr of the last PL_LOAD segment, calculated by
+ * adding p_memsz to p_paddr & rounded up to ELF_PAGE_SIZE,
+ * will be the end address of this loaded_segments entry.
+ */
while (i < ehdr->e_phnum) {
phdr = &ehdr->e_phdr[i];
if (phdr->p_type != PT_LOAD)
break;
- if (loaded_segments[loaded_segments_num].end !- phdr->p_paddr & ~(ELF_PAGE_SIZE-1))
- break;
- loaded_segments[loaded_segments_num].end +- (phdr->p_memsz + ELF_PAGE_SIZE - 1) &
- ~(ELF_PAGE_SIZE - 1);
+ loaded_segments[loaded_segments_num].end + (phdr->p_paddr + phdr->p_memsz +
+ ELF_PAGE_SIZE - 1) & ~(ELF_PAGE_SIZE - 1);
i++;
}
-
loaded_segments_num++;
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-22 23:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-08 6:49 [patch] ia64: Order of operations bug in PT_LOAD segment reader Simon Horman
2008-10-08 7:56 ` Andreas Schwab
2008-10-08 22:09 ` Simon Horman
2008-10-21 16:52 ` Jay Lan
2008-10-22 23:25 ` Simon Horman [this message]
2008-10-22 23:47 ` Jay Lan
2008-10-23 0:01 ` Simon Horman
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=20081022232519.GC5247@verge.net.au \
--to=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=bwalle@suse.de \
--cc=jlan@sgi.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox