Re: [PATCH v1 03/11] fs/proc/vmcore: disallow vmcore modifications after the vmcore was opened

Baoquan He
2024-12-03T10:42:40Z

On 11/29/24 at 11:38am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 25.11.24 15:41, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 11/22/24 at 10:30am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 22.11.24 10:16, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > > On 10/25/24 at 05:11pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > ......snip...
> > > > > @@ -1482,6 +1470,10 @@ int vmcore_add_device_dump(struct vmcoredd_data *data)
> > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > }
> > > > > + /* We'll recheck under lock later. */
> > > > > + if (data_race(vmcore_opened))
> > > > > + return -EBUSY;
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > As I commented to patch 7, if vmcore is opened and closed after
> > > > checking, do we need to give up any chance to add device dumping
> > > > as below?
> > > >
> > > > fd = open(/proc/vmcore);
> > > > ...do checking;
> > > > close(fd);
> > > >
> > > > quit any device dump adding;
> > > >
> > > > run makedumpfile on s390;
> > > > ->fd = open(/proc/vmcore);
> > > > -> try to dump;
> > > > ->close(fd);
> > >
> > > The only reasonable case where this could happen (with virtio_mem) would be
> > > when you hotplug a virtio-mem device into a VM that is currently in the
> > > kdump kernel. However, in this case, the device would not provide any memory
> > > we want to dump:
> > >
> > > (1) The memory was not available to the 1st (crashed) kernel, because
> > > the device got hotplugged later.
> > > (2) Hotplugged virtio-mem devices show up with "no plugged memory",
> > > meaning there wouldn't be even something to dump.
> > >
> > > Drivers will be loaded (as part of the kernel or as part of the initrd)
> > > before any kdump action is happening. Similarly, just imagine your NIC
> > > driver not being loaded when you start dumping to a network share ...
> > >
> > > This should similarly apply to vmcoredd providers.
> > >
> > > There is another concern I had at some point with changing the effective
> > > /proc/vmcore size after someone already opened it, and might assume the size
> > > will stay unmodified (IOW, the file was completely static before vmcoredd
> > > showed up).
> > >
> > > So unless there is a real use case that requires tracking whether the file
> > > is no longer open, to support modifying the vmcore afterwards, we should
> > > keep it simple.
> > >
> > > I am not aware of any such cases, and my experiments with virtio_mem showed
> > > that the driver get loaded extremely early from the initrd, compared to when
> > > we actually start messing with /proc/vmcore from user space.

It's OK, David, I don't have strong opinion about the current
implementation. I raised this concern because

1) I saw the original vmcoredd only warn when doing register if
vmcore_opened is true;

2) in patch 1, it says vmcore_mutex is introduced to protect vmcore
modifications from concurrent opening. If we are confident, the old
vmcoredd_mutex can guarantee it, I could be wrong here.

Anyway, it's just a tiny concern, I believe it won't cause issue at
present. So it's up to you.

Thanks