[PATCH 0/6] kexec: enable kexec_crash_size to support two crash kernel regions

[PATCH 0/6] kexec: enable kexec_crash_size to support two crash kernel regions

[Zhen Lei]

When crashkernel=X fails to reserve region under 4G, it will fall back to
reserve region above 4G and a region of the default size will also be reserved
under 4G. Unfortunately, /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size only supports one crash
kernel region now, the user cannot sense the low memory reserved by reading
/sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size. Also, low memory cannot be freed by writing this
file.

For example:
resource_size(crashk_res) = 512M
resource_size(crashk_low_res) = 256M

The result of 'cat /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size' is 512M, but it should be 768M.
When we execute 'echo 0 > /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size', the size of crashk_res
becomes 0 and resource_size(crashk_low_res) is still 256 MB, which is incorrect.

Since crashk_res manages the memory with high address and crashk_low_res manages
the memory with low address, crashk_low_res is shrunken only when all crashk_res
is shrunken. And because when there is only one crash kernel region, crashk_res
is always used. Therefore, if all crashk_res is shrunken and crashk_low_res still
exists, swap them.


Zhen Lei (6):
  kexec: fix a memory leak in crash_shrink_memory()
  kexec: delete a useless check in crash_shrink_memory()
  kexec: clear crashk_res if all its memory has been released
  kexec: improve the readability of crash_shrink_memory()
  kexec: add helper __crash_shrink_memory()
  kexec: enable kexec_crash_size to support two crash kernel regions

 kernel/kexec_core.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

-- 
2.25.1

[PATCH 1/6] kexec: fix a memory leak in crash_shrink_memory()

[Zhen Lei]

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
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

Re: [PATCH 1/6] kexec: fix a memory leak in crash_shrink_memory()

[Baoquan He]

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
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/6] kexec: fix a memory leak in crash_shrink_memory()

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2023/5/31 8:13, Baoquan He wrote:
> 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?

We can't give a fixed value, that is, how much crash memory is reserved to
ensure that the capture kernel runs. The size of KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN is
only one page on non-s390 platforms. So, it's better to keep the code simple,
and let the user(administrator) shrink the crash memory reasonably.

include/linux/kexec.h
#define KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN	PAGE_SIZE

> 
>> 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
>>
> 
> .
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei

Re: [PATCH 1/6] kexec: fix a memory leak in crash_shrink_memory()

[Baoquan He]

On 05/31/23 at 09:16am, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2023/5/31 8:13, Baoquan He wrote:
> > 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?

OK, I misread your log. You are saying the new_size is close to
crashk_res.end but has a tiny difference in your example, I
thought the new_size is smaller than KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN which is just
in the opposite direction.

Yea, it does have the possibility to waste a ram_res but does nothing
even though the chance is very small.

Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>

> 
> We can't give a fixed value, that is, how much crash memory is reserved to
> ensure that the capture kernel runs. The size of KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN is
> only one page on non-s390 platforms. So, it's better to keep the code simple,
> and let the user(administrator) shrink the crash memory reasonably.
> 
> include/linux/kexec.h
> #define KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN	PAGE_SIZE

> 
> > 
> >> 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
> >>
> > 
> > .
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
>   Zhen Lei
> 

[PATCH 2/6] kexec: delete a useless check in crash_shrink_memory()

[Zhen Lei]

The check '(crashk_res.parent != NULL)' is added by
commit e05bd3367bd3 ("kexec: fix Oops in crash_shrink_memory()"), but it's
stale now. Because if 'crashk_res' is not reserved, it will be zero in
size and will be intercepted by the above 'if (new_size >= old_size)'.

Ago:
	if (new_size >= end - start + 1)

Now:
	old_size = (end == 0) ? 0 : end - start + 1;
	if (new_size >= old_size)

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 kernel/kexec_core.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
index 22acee18195a591..d1ab139dd49035e 100644
--- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
+++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
@@ -1137,7 +1137,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
 	end = start + new_size;
 	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(end, crashk_res.end);
 
-	if ((start == end) && (crashk_res.parent != NULL))
+	if (start == end)
 		release_resource(&crashk_res);
 
 	ram_res->start = end;
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH 2/6] kexec: delete a useless check in crash_shrink_memory()

[Baoquan He]

On 05/27/23 at 08:34pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
> The check '(crashk_res.parent != NULL)' is added by
> commit e05bd3367bd3 ("kexec: fix Oops in crash_shrink_memory()"), but it's
> stale now. Because if 'crashk_res' is not reserved, it will be zero in
> size and will be intercepted by the above 'if (new_size >= old_size)'.
> 
> Ago:
> 	if (new_size >= end - start + 1)
> 
> Now:
> 	old_size = (end == 0) ? 0 : end - start + 1;
> 	if (new_size >= old_size)

Hmm, I would strongly suggest we keep that check. Even though the
current code like above can do the acutal checking, but its actual usage
is not obvious for checking of crashk_res existence. In the future,
someone may change above calculation and don't notice the hidden
functionality at all behind the calculation. The cost of the check is
almost zero, right?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  kernel/kexec_core.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> index 22acee18195a591..d1ab139dd49035e 100644
> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> @@ -1137,7 +1137,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>  	end = start + new_size;
>  	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(end, crashk_res.end);
>  
> -	if ((start == end) && (crashk_res.parent != NULL))
> +	if (start == end)
>  		release_resource(&crashk_res);
>  
>  	ram_res->start = end;
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

Re: [PATCH 2/6] kexec: delete a useless check in crash_shrink_memory()

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2023/5/31 8:17, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 05/27/23 at 08:34pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> The check '(crashk_res.parent != NULL)' is added by
>> commit e05bd3367bd3 ("kexec: fix Oops in crash_shrink_memory()"), but it's
>> stale now. Because if 'crashk_res' is not reserved, it will be zero in
>> size and will be intercepted by the above 'if (new_size >= old_size)'.
>>
>> Ago:
>> 	if (new_size >= end - start + 1)
>>
>> Now:
>> 	old_size = (end == 0) ? 0 : end - start + 1;
>> 	if (new_size >= old_size)
> 
> Hmm, I would strongly suggest we keep that check. Even though the
> current code like above can do the acutal checking, but its actual usage
> is not obvious for checking of crashk_res existence. In the future,
> someone may change above calculation and don't notice the hidden
> functionality at all behind the calculation. The cost of the check is
> almost zero, right?

The cost of the check is negligible. The only downside is that it's hard to
understand why it's added, and I only found out why by looking at the history
log. In my opinion, the above 'Now:' is the right fix.

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/kexec_core.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
>> index 22acee18195a591..d1ab139dd49035e 100644
>> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
>> @@ -1137,7 +1137,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>>  	end = start + new_size;
>>  	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(end, crashk_res.end);
>>  
>> -	if ((start == end) && (crashk_res.parent != NULL))
>> +	if (start == end)
>>  		release_resource(&crashk_res);
>>  
>>  	ram_res->start = end;
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>
> 
> .
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei

Re: [PATCH 2/6] kexec: delete a useless check in crash_shrink_memory()

[Baoquan He]

On 05/31/23 at 10:19am, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2023/5/31 8:17, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 05/27/23 at 08:34pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
> >> The check '(crashk_res.parent != NULL)' is added by
> >> commit e05bd3367bd3 ("kexec: fix Oops in crash_shrink_memory()"), but it's
> >> stale now. Because if 'crashk_res' is not reserved, it will be zero in
> >> size and will be intercepted by the above 'if (new_size >= old_size)'.
> >>
> >> Ago:
> >> 	if (new_size >= end - start + 1)
> >>
> >> Now:
> >> 	old_size = (end == 0) ? 0 : end - start + 1;
> >> 	if (new_size >= old_size)
> > 
> > Hmm, I would strongly suggest we keep that check. Even though the
> > current code like above can do the acutal checking, but its actual usage
> > is not obvious for checking of crashk_res existence. In the future,
> > someone may change above calculation and don't notice the hidden
> > functionality at all behind the calculation. The cost of the check is
> > almost zero, right?
> 
> The cost of the check is negligible. The only downside is that it's hard to
> understand why it's added, and I only found out why by looking at the history
> log. In my opinion, the above 'Now:' is the right fix.

It checks if the resource exists before releasing, just a normal
checking?
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >>  kernel/kexec_core.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> >> index 22acee18195a591..d1ab139dd49035e 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> >> @@ -1137,7 +1137,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
> >>  	end = start + new_size;
> >>  	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(end, crashk_res.end);
> >>  
> >> -	if ((start == end) && (crashk_res.parent != NULL))
> >> +	if (start == end)
> >>  		release_resource(&crashk_res);
> >>  
> >>  	ram_res->start = end;
> >> -- 
> >> 2.25.1
> >>
> > 
> > .
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
>   Zhen Lei
> 

Re: [PATCH 2/6] kexec: delete a useless check in crash_shrink_memory()

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2023/5/31 15:41, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 05/31/23 at 10:19am, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2023/5/31 8:17, Baoquan He wrote:
>>> On 05/27/23 at 08:34pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>>> The check '(crashk_res.parent != NULL)' is added by
>>>> commit e05bd3367bd3 ("kexec: fix Oops in crash_shrink_memory()"), but it's
>>>> stale now. Because if 'crashk_res' is not reserved, it will be zero in
>>>> size and will be intercepted by the above 'if (new_size >= old_size)'.
>>>>
>>>> Ago:
>>>> 	if (new_size >= end - start + 1)
>>>>
>>>> Now:
>>>> 	old_size = (end == 0) ? 0 : end - start + 1;
>>>> 	if (new_size >= old_size)
>>>
>>> Hmm, I would strongly suggest we keep that check. Even though the
>>> current code like above can do the acutal checking, but its actual usage
>>> is not obvious for checking of crashk_res existence. In the future,
>>> someone may change above calculation and don't notice the hidden
>>> functionality at all behind the calculation. The cost of the check is
>>> almost zero, right?
>>
>> The cost of the check is negligible. The only downside is that it's hard to
>> understand why it's added, and I only found out why by looking at the history
>> log. In my opinion, the above 'Now:' is the right fix.
> 
> It checks if the resource exists before releasing, just a normal
> checking?

If resource_size(&crashk_res) is zero, it means that crashk_res has not been
added(insert_resource) or has been deleted(release_resource). I've tested it. It's okay.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  kernel/kexec_core.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
>>>> index 22acee18195a591..d1ab139dd49035e 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
>>>> @@ -1137,7 +1137,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>>>>  	end = start + new_size;
>>>>  	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(end, crashk_res.end);
>>>>  
>>>> -	if ((start == end) && (crashk_res.parent != NULL))
>>>> +	if (start == end)
>>>>  		release_resource(&crashk_res);
>>>>  
>>>>  	ram_res->start = end;
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>>   Zhen Lei
>>
> 
> 
> .
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei

[PATCH 3/6] kexec: clear crashk_res if all its memory has been released

[Zhen Lei]

If the resource of crashk_res has been released, it is better to clear
crashk_res.start and crashk_res.end. Because 'end = start - 1' is not
reasonable, and in some places the test is based on crashk_res.end, not
resource_size(&crashk_res).

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 kernel/kexec_core.c | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
index d1ab139dd49035e..bcc86a250ab3bf9 100644
--- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
+++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
@@ -1137,15 +1137,18 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
 	end = start + new_size;
 	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(end, crashk_res.end);
 
-	if (start == end)
-		release_resource(&crashk_res);
-
 	ram_res->start = end;
 	ram_res->end = crashk_res.end;
 	ram_res->flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM;
 	ram_res->name = "System RAM";
 
-	crashk_res.end = end - 1;
+	if (start == end) {
+		release_resource(&crashk_res);
+		crashk_res.start = 0;
+		crashk_res.end = 0;
+	} else {
+		crashk_res.end = end - 1;
+	}
 
 	insert_resource(&iomem_resource, ram_res);
 
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH 3/6] kexec: clear crashk_res if all its memory has been released

[Baoquan He]

On 05/27/23 at 08:34pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
> If the resource of crashk_res has been released, it is better to clear
> crashk_res.start and crashk_res.end. Because 'end = start - 1' is not
> reasonable, and in some places the test is based on crashk_res.end, not
> resource_size(&crashk_res).

This looks reasonable, at least I haven't think of any risk it could
bring. Thanks.

Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>

> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  kernel/kexec_core.c | 11 +++++++----
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> index d1ab139dd49035e..bcc86a250ab3bf9 100644
> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> @@ -1137,15 +1137,18 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>  	end = start + new_size;
>  	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(end, crashk_res.end);
>  
> -	if (start == end)
> -		release_resource(&crashk_res);
> -
>  	ram_res->start = end;
>  	ram_res->end = crashk_res.end;
>  	ram_res->flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM;
>  	ram_res->name = "System RAM";
>  
> -	crashk_res.end = end - 1;
> +	if (start == end) {
> +		release_resource(&crashk_res);
> +		crashk_res.start = 0;
> +		crashk_res.end = 0;
> +	} else {
> +		crashk_res.end = end - 1;
> +	}
>  
>  	insert_resource(&iomem_resource, ram_res);
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

[PATCH 4/6] kexec: improve the readability of crash_shrink_memory()

[Zhen Lei]

The major adjustments are:
1. end = start + new_size.
   The 'end' here is not an accurate representation, because it is not the
   new end of crashk_res, but the start of ram_res, difference 1. So
   eliminate it and replace it with ram_res->start.
2. Use 'ram_res->start' and 'ram_res->end' as arguments to
   crash_free_reserved_phys_range() to indicate that the memory covered by
   'ram_res' is released from the crashk. And keep it close to
   insert_resource().
3. Replace 'if (start == end)' with 'if (!new_size)', clear indication that
   all crashk memory will be shrunken.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 kernel/kexec_core.c | 15 +++++----------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
index bcc86a250ab3bf9..69fe92141b0b62d 100644
--- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
+++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
@@ -1108,7 +1108,6 @@ ssize_t crash_get_memory_size(void)
 int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
 {
 	int ret = 0;
-	unsigned long start, end;
 	unsigned long old_size;
 	struct resource *ram_res;
 
@@ -1119,9 +1118,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
 		ret = -ENOENT;
 		goto unlock;
 	}
-	start = crashk_res.start;
-	end = crashk_res.end;
-	old_size = (end == 0) ? 0 : end - start + 1;
+	old_size = !crashk_res.end ? 0 : resource_size(&crashk_res);
 	new_size = roundup(new_size, KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN);
 	if (new_size >= old_size) {
 		ret = (new_size == old_size) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
@@ -1134,22 +1131,20 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
 		goto unlock;
 	}
 
-	end = start + new_size;
-	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(end, crashk_res.end);
-
-	ram_res->start = end;
+	ram_res->start = crashk_res.start + new_size;
 	ram_res->end = crashk_res.end;
 	ram_res->flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM;
 	ram_res->name = "System RAM";
 
-	if (start == end) {
+	if (!new_size) {
 		release_resource(&crashk_res);
 		crashk_res.start = 0;
 		crashk_res.end = 0;
 	} else {
-		crashk_res.end = end - 1;
+		crashk_res.end = ram_res->start - 1;
 	}
 
+	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(ram_res->start, ram_res->end);
 	insert_resource(&iomem_resource, ram_res);
 
 unlock:
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH 4/6] kexec: improve the readability of crash_shrink_memory()

[Baoquan He]

On 05/27/23 at 08:34pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
> The major adjustments are:
> 1. end = start + new_size.
>    The 'end' here is not an accurate representation, because it is not the
>    new end of crashk_res, but the start of ram_res, difference 1. So
>    eliminate it and replace it with ram_res->start.
> 2. Use 'ram_res->start' and 'ram_res->end' as arguments to
>    crash_free_reserved_phys_range() to indicate that the memory covered by
>    'ram_res' is released from the crashk. And keep it close to
>    insert_resource().
> 3. Replace 'if (start == end)' with 'if (!new_size)', clear indication that
>    all crashk memory will be shrunken.
> 
> No functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>

LGTM,

Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>

> ---
>  kernel/kexec_core.c | 15 +++++----------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> index bcc86a250ab3bf9..69fe92141b0b62d 100644
> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> @@ -1108,7 +1108,6 @@ ssize_t crash_get_memory_size(void)
>  int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
> -	unsigned long start, end;
>  	unsigned long old_size;
>  	struct resource *ram_res;
>  
> @@ -1119,9 +1118,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>  		ret = -ENOENT;
>  		goto unlock;
>  	}
> -	start = crashk_res.start;
> -	end = crashk_res.end;
> -	old_size = (end == 0) ? 0 : end - start + 1;
> +	old_size = !crashk_res.end ? 0 : resource_size(&crashk_res);
>  	new_size = roundup(new_size, KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN);
>  	if (new_size >= old_size) {
>  		ret = (new_size == old_size) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> @@ -1134,22 +1131,20 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>  		goto unlock;
>  	}
>  
> -	end = start + new_size;
> -	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(end, crashk_res.end);
> -
> -	ram_res->start = end;
> +	ram_res->start = crashk_res.start + new_size;
>  	ram_res->end = crashk_res.end;
>  	ram_res->flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM;
>  	ram_res->name = "System RAM";
>  
> -	if (start == end) {
> +	if (!new_size) {
>  		release_resource(&crashk_res);
>  		crashk_res.start = 0;
>  		crashk_res.end = 0;
>  	} else {
> -		crashk_res.end = end - 1;
> +		crashk_res.end = ram_res->start - 1;
>  	}
>  
> +	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(ram_res->start, ram_res->end);
>  	insert_resource(&iomem_resource, ram_res);
>  
>  unlock:
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

[PATCH 5/6] kexec: add helper __crash_shrink_memory()

[Zhen Lei]

No functional change, in preparation for the next patch so that it is
easier to review.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 kernel/kexec_core.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
index 69fe92141b0b62d..e82bc6d6634136a 100644
--- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
+++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
@@ -1105,11 +1105,37 @@ ssize_t crash_get_memory_size(void)
 	return size;
 }
 
+int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)
+{
+	struct resource *ram_res;
+
+	ram_res = kzalloc(sizeof(*ram_res), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!ram_res)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	ram_res->start = old_res->start + new_size;
+	ram_res->end   = old_res->end;
+	ram_res->flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM;
+	ram_res->name  = "System RAM";
+
+	if (!new_size) {
+		release_resource(old_res);
+		old_res->start = 0;
+		old_res->end   = 0;
+	} else {
+		crashk_res.end = ram_res->start - 1;
+	}
+
+	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(ram_res->start, ram_res->end);
+	insert_resource(&iomem_resource, ram_res);
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
 {
 	int ret = 0;
 	unsigned long old_size;
-	struct resource *ram_res;
 
 	if (!kexec_trylock())
 		return -EBUSY;
@@ -1125,27 +1151,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
 		goto unlock;
 	}
 
-	ram_res = kzalloc(sizeof(*ram_res), GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (!ram_res) {
-		ret = -ENOMEM;
-		goto unlock;
-	}
-
-	ram_res->start = crashk_res.start + new_size;
-	ram_res->end = crashk_res.end;
-	ram_res->flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM;
-	ram_res->name = "System RAM";
-
-	if (!new_size) {
-		release_resource(&crashk_res);
-		crashk_res.start = 0;
-		crashk_res.end = 0;
-	} else {
-		crashk_res.end = ram_res->start - 1;
-	}
-
-	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(ram_res->start, ram_res->end);
-	insert_resource(&iomem_resource, ram_res);
+	ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_res, new_size);
 
 unlock:
 	kexec_unlock();
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH 5/6] kexec: add helper __crash_shrink_memory()

[kernel test robot]

Hi Zhen,

kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:

[auto build test WARNING on akpm-mm/mm-everything]
[also build test WARNING on linus/master v6.4-rc3 next-20230525]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Zhen-Lei/kexec-fix-a-memory-leak-in-crash_shrink_memory/20230527-203821
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-everything
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230527123439.772-6-thunder.leizhen%40huawei.com
patch subject: [PATCH 5/6] kexec: add helper __crash_shrink_memory()
config: riscv-randconfig-r042-20230526 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230528/202305280717.Pw06aLkz-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 17.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 4faf3aaf28226a4e950c103a14f6fc1d1fdabb1b)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
        mkdir -p ~/bin
        wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
        chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
        # install riscv cross compiling tool for clang build
        # apt-get install binutils-riscv64-linux-gnu
        # https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/dea97cef503d26e05d0e11818ae44176056ddf64
        git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
        git fetch --no-tags linux-review Zhen-Lei/kexec-fix-a-memory-leak-in-crash_shrink_memory/20230527-203821
        git checkout dea97cef503d26e05d0e11818ae44176056ddf64
        # save the config file
        mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
        COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang ~/bin/make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=riscv olddefconfig
        COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang ~/bin/make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=riscv SHELL=/bin/bash

If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305280717.Pw06aLkz-lkp@intel.com/

All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):

>> kernel/kexec_core.c:1108:5: warning: no previous prototype for function '__crash_shrink_memory' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
   int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)
       ^
   kernel/kexec_core.c:1108:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
   int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)
   ^
   static 
   1 warning generated.


vim +/__crash_shrink_memory +1108 kernel/kexec_core.c

  1107	
> 1108	int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)
  1109	{
  1110		struct resource *ram_res;
  1111	
  1112		ram_res = kzalloc(sizeof(*ram_res), GFP_KERNEL);
  1113		if (!ram_res)
  1114			return -ENOMEM;
  1115	
  1116		ram_res->start = old_res->start + new_size;
  1117		ram_res->end   = old_res->end;
  1118		ram_res->flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM;
  1119		ram_res->name  = "System RAM";
  1120	
  1121		if (!new_size) {
  1122			release_resource(old_res);
  1123			old_res->start = 0;
  1124			old_res->end   = 0;
  1125		} else {
  1126			crashk_res.end = ram_res->start - 1;
  1127		}
  1128	
  1129		crash_free_reserved_phys_range(ram_res->start, ram_res->end);
  1130		insert_resource(&iomem_resource, ram_res);
  1131	
  1132		return 0;
  1133	}
  1134	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

Re: [PATCH 5/6] kexec: add helper __crash_shrink_memory()

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2023/5/28 8:08, kernel test robot wrote:
> Hi Zhen,
> 
> kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
> 
> [auto build test WARNING on akpm-mm/mm-everything]
> [also build test WARNING on linus/master v6.4-rc3 next-20230525]
> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
> 
> url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Zhen-Lei/kexec-fix-a-memory-leak-in-crash_shrink_memory/20230527-203821
> base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-everything
> patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230527123439.772-6-thunder.leizhen%40huawei.com
> patch subject: [PATCH 5/6] kexec: add helper __crash_shrink_memory()
> config: riscv-randconfig-r042-20230526 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230528/202305280717.Pw06aLkz-lkp@intel.com/config)
> compiler: clang version 17.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 4faf3aaf28226a4e950c103a14f6fc1d1fdabb1b)
> reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
>         mkdir -p ~/bin
>         wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
>         chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
>         # install riscv cross compiling tool for clang build
>         # apt-get install binutils-riscv64-linux-gnu
>         # https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/dea97cef503d26e05d0e11818ae44176056ddf64
>         git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
>         git fetch --no-tags linux-review Zhen-Lei/kexec-fix-a-memory-leak-in-crash_shrink_memory/20230527-203821
>         git checkout dea97cef503d26e05d0e11818ae44176056ddf64
>         # save the config file
>         mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
>         COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang ~/bin/make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=riscv olddefconfig
>         COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang ~/bin/make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=riscv SHELL=/bin/bash
> 
> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305280717.Pw06aLkz-lkp@intel.com/
> 
> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> 
>>> kernel/kexec_core.c:1108:5: warning: no previous prototype for function '__crash_shrink_memory' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>    int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)
>        ^
>    kernel/kexec_core.c:1108:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
>    int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)
>    ^
>    static 
>    1 warning generated.

Yes, thanks, a 'static' should be added.

> 
> 
> vim +/__crash_shrink_memory +1108 kernel/kexec_core.c
> 
>   1107	
>> 1108	int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)
>   1109	{
>   1110		struct resource *ram_res;
>   1111	
>   1112		ram_res = kzalloc(sizeof(*ram_res), GFP_KERNEL);
>   1113		if (!ram_res)
>   1114			return -ENOMEM;
>   1115	
>   1116		ram_res->start = old_res->start + new_size;
>   1117		ram_res->end   = old_res->end;
>   1118		ram_res->flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM;
>   1119		ram_res->name  = "System RAM";
>   1120	
>   1121		if (!new_size) {
>   1122			release_resource(old_res);
>   1123			old_res->start = 0;
>   1124			old_res->end   = 0;
>   1125		} else {
>   1126			crashk_res.end = ram_res->start - 1;
>   1127		}
>   1128	
>   1129		crash_free_reserved_phys_range(ram_res->start, ram_res->end);
>   1130		insert_resource(&iomem_resource, ram_res);
>   1131	
>   1132		return 0;
>   1133	}
>   1134	
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei

Re: [PATCH 5/6] kexec: add helper __crash_shrink_memory()

[kernel test robot]

Hi Zhen,

kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:

[auto build test WARNING on akpm-mm/mm-everything]
[also build test WARNING on linus/master v6.4-rc3 next-20230525]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Zhen-Lei/kexec-fix-a-memory-leak-in-crash_shrink_memory/20230527-203821
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-everything
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230527123439.772-6-thunder.leizhen%40huawei.com
patch subject: [PATCH 5/6] kexec: add helper __crash_shrink_memory()
config: mips-randconfig-r012-20230528 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230528/202305280949.yYtbjy5B-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: mipsel-linux-gcc (GCC) 12.1.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
        mkdir -p ~/bin
        wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
        chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
        # https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/dea97cef503d26e05d0e11818ae44176056ddf64
        git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
        git fetch --no-tags linux-review Zhen-Lei/kexec-fix-a-memory-leak-in-crash_shrink_memory/20230527-203821
        git checkout dea97cef503d26e05d0e11818ae44176056ddf64
        # save the config file
        mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
        COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-12.1.0 ~/bin/make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=mips olddefconfig
        COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-12.1.0 ~/bin/make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=mips SHELL=/bin/bash

If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305280949.yYtbjy5B-lkp@intel.com/

All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):

>> kernel/kexec_core.c:1108:5: warning: no previous prototype for '__crash_shrink_memory' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
    1108 | int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)
         |     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


vim +/__crash_shrink_memory +1108 kernel/kexec_core.c

  1107	
> 1108	int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)
  1109	{
  1110		struct resource *ram_res;
  1111	
  1112		ram_res = kzalloc(sizeof(*ram_res), GFP_KERNEL);
  1113		if (!ram_res)
  1114			return -ENOMEM;
  1115	
  1116		ram_res->start = old_res->start + new_size;
  1117		ram_res->end   = old_res->end;
  1118		ram_res->flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM;
  1119		ram_res->name  = "System RAM";
  1120	
  1121		if (!new_size) {
  1122			release_resource(old_res);
  1123			old_res->start = 0;
  1124			old_res->end   = 0;
  1125		} else {
  1126			crashk_res.end = ram_res->start - 1;
  1127		}
  1128	
  1129		crash_free_reserved_phys_range(ram_res->start, ram_res->end);
  1130		insert_resource(&iomem_resource, ram_res);
  1131	
  1132		return 0;
  1133	}
  1134	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

Re: [PATCH 5/6] kexec: add helper __crash_shrink_memory()

[kernel test robot]

Hi Zhen,

kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:

[auto build test WARNING on akpm-mm/mm-everything]
[also build test WARNING on linus/master v6.4-rc3 next-20230525]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Zhen-Lei/kexec-fix-a-memory-leak-in-crash_shrink_memory/20230527-203821
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-everything
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230527123439.772-6-thunder.leizhen%40huawei.com
patch subject: [PATCH 5/6] kexec: add helper __crash_shrink_memory()
config: x86_64-randconfig-s033-20230528 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230528/202305281410.FdGZvhsb-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: gcc-11 (Debian 11.3.0-12) 11.3.0
reproduce:
        # apt-get install sparse
        # sparse version: v0.6.4-39-gce1a6720-dirty
        # https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/dea97cef503d26e05d0e11818ae44176056ddf64
        git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
        git fetch --no-tags linux-review Zhen-Lei/kexec-fix-a-memory-leak-in-crash_shrink_memory/20230527-203821
        git checkout dea97cef503d26e05d0e11818ae44176056ddf64
        # save the config file
        mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
        make W=1 C=1 CF='-fdiagnostic-prefix -D__CHECK_ENDIAN__' O=build_dir ARCH=x86_64 olddefconfig
        make W=1 C=1 CF='-fdiagnostic-prefix -D__CHECK_ENDIAN__' O=build_dir ARCH=x86_64 SHELL=/bin/bash

If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305281410.FdGZvhsb-lkp@intel.com/

sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>> kernel/kexec_core.c:1108:5: sparse: sparse: symbol '__crash_shrink_memory' was not declared. Should it be static?

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

Re: [PATCH 5/6] kexec: add helper __crash_shrink_memory()

[Baoquan He]

On 05/27/23 at 08:34pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
> No functional change, in preparation for the next patch so that it is
> easier to review.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  kernel/kexec_core.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> index 69fe92141b0b62d..e82bc6d6634136a 100644
> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> @@ -1105,11 +1105,37 @@ ssize_t crash_get_memory_size(void)
>  	return size;
>  }
>  
> +int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)

Other than the missing static, looks good,

Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>

> +{
> +	struct resource *ram_res;
> +
> +	ram_res = kzalloc(sizeof(*ram_res), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!ram_res)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	ram_res->start = old_res->start + new_size;
> +	ram_res->end   = old_res->end;
> +	ram_res->flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM;
> +	ram_res->name  = "System RAM";
> +
> +	if (!new_size) {
> +		release_resource(old_res);
> +		old_res->start = 0;
> +		old_res->end   = 0;
> +	} else {
> +		crashk_res.end = ram_res->start - 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(ram_res->start, ram_res->end);
> +	insert_resource(&iomem_resource, ram_res);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
>  	unsigned long old_size;
> -	struct resource *ram_res;
>  
>  	if (!kexec_trylock())
>  		return -EBUSY;
> @@ -1125,27 +1151,7 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>  		goto unlock;
>  	}
>  
> -	ram_res = kzalloc(sizeof(*ram_res), GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!ram_res) {
> -		ret = -ENOMEM;
> -		goto unlock;
> -	}
> -
> -	ram_res->start = crashk_res.start + new_size;
> -	ram_res->end = crashk_res.end;
> -	ram_res->flags = IORESOURCE_BUSY | IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM;
> -	ram_res->name = "System RAM";
> -
> -	if (!new_size) {
> -		release_resource(&crashk_res);
> -		crashk_res.start = 0;
> -		crashk_res.end = 0;
> -	} else {
> -		crashk_res.end = ram_res->start - 1;
> -	}
> -
> -	crash_free_reserved_phys_range(ram_res->start, ram_res->end);
> -	insert_resource(&iomem_resource, ram_res);
> +	ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_res, new_size);
>  
>  unlock:
>  	kexec_unlock();
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

[PATCH 6/6] kexec: enable kexec_crash_size to support two crash kernel regions

[Zhen Lei]

The crashk_low_res should be considered by /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size
to support two crash kernel regions. Since crashk_res manages the memory
with high address and crashk_low_res manages the memory with low address,
crashk_low_res is shrunken only when all crashk_res is shrunken. And
because when there is only one crash kernel region, crashk_res is always
used. Therefore, if all crashk_res is shrunken and crashk_low_res still
exists, swap them.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 kernel/kexec_core.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
index e82bc6d6634136a..c1d50f6566300d9 100644
--- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
+++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
@@ -1091,6 +1091,11 @@ __bpf_kfunc void crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	}
 }
 
+static inline resource_size_t crash_resource_size(const struct resource *res)
+{
+	return !res->end ? 0 : resource_size(res);
+}
+
 ssize_t crash_get_memory_size(void)
 {
 	ssize_t size = 0;
@@ -1098,8 +1103,8 @@ ssize_t crash_get_memory_size(void)
 	if (!kexec_trylock())
 		return -EBUSY;
 
-	if (crashk_res.end != crashk_res.start)
-		size = resource_size(&crashk_res);
+	size += crash_resource_size(&crashk_res);
+	size += crash_resource_size(&crashk_low_res);
 
 	kexec_unlock();
 	return size;
@@ -1135,7 +1140,7 @@ int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)
 int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
 {
 	int ret = 0;
-	unsigned long old_size;
+	unsigned long old_size, low_size;
 
 	if (!kexec_trylock())
 		return -EBUSY;
@@ -1144,14 +1149,42 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
 		ret = -ENOENT;
 		goto unlock;
 	}
-	old_size = !crashk_res.end ? 0 : resource_size(&crashk_res);
+
+	low_size = crash_resource_size(&crashk_low_res);
+	old_size = crash_resource_size(&crashk_res) + low_size;
 	new_size = roundup(new_size, KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN);
 	if (new_size >= old_size) {
 		ret = (new_size == old_size) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
 		goto unlock;
 	}
 
-	ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_res, new_size);
+	/*
+	 * (low_size > new_size) implies that low_size is greater than zero.
+	 * This also means that if low_size is zero, the else branch is taken.
+	 *
+	 * If low_size is greater than 0, (low_size > new_size) indicates that
+	 * crashk_low_res also needs to be shrunken. Otherwise, only crashk_res
+	 * needs to be shrunken.
+	 */
+	if (low_size > new_size) {
+		ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_res, 0);
+		if (ret)
+			goto unlock;
+
+		ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_low_res, new_size);
+	} else {
+		ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_res, new_size - low_size);
+	}
+
+	/* Swap crashk_res and crashk_low_res if needed */
+	if (!crashk_res.end && crashk_low_res.end) {
+		crashk_res.start = crashk_low_res.start;
+		crashk_res.end   = crashk_low_res.end;
+		release_resource(&crashk_low_res);
+		crashk_low_res.start = 0;
+		crashk_low_res.end   = 0;
+		insert_resource(&iomem_resource, &crashk_res);
+	}
 
 unlock:
 	kexec_unlock();
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH 6/6] kexec: enable kexec_crash_size to support two crash kernel regions

[Baoquan He]

On 05/27/23 at 08:34pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
> The crashk_low_res should be considered by /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size
> to support two crash kernel regions. Since crashk_res manages the memory
> with high address and crashk_low_res manages the memory with low address,
> crashk_low_res is shrunken only when all crashk_res is shrunken. And
> because when there is only one crash kernel region, crashk_res is always
> used. Therefore, if all crashk_res is shrunken and crashk_low_res still
> exists, swap them.

This looks good, otherwise someone else won't stop attempting to add
support of crashk_low_res shrinking. Not sure if this will bring corner
case issue in testing, let's see. For the patch log, I tried to
rephrase, feel free to refer to.

=====
The crashk_low_res should be considered by /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size
to support two crash kernel regions shrinking if existing.

While doing it, crashk_low_res will only be shrunk when the entire
crashk_res is empty; and if the crashk_res is empty and crahk_low_res
is not, change crashk_low_res to be crashk_res.
=====

With the log updated, you can add:

Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>

> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  kernel/kexec_core.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> index e82bc6d6634136a..c1d50f6566300d9 100644
> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
> @@ -1091,6 +1091,11 @@ __bpf_kfunc void crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static inline resource_size_t crash_resource_size(const struct resource *res)
> +{
> +	return !res->end ? 0 : resource_size(res);
> +}
> +
>  ssize_t crash_get_memory_size(void)
>  {
>  	ssize_t size = 0;
> @@ -1098,8 +1103,8 @@ ssize_t crash_get_memory_size(void)
>  	if (!kexec_trylock())
>  		return -EBUSY;
>  
> -	if (crashk_res.end != crashk_res.start)
> -		size = resource_size(&crashk_res);
> +	size += crash_resource_size(&crashk_res);
> +	size += crash_resource_size(&crashk_low_res);
>  
>  	kexec_unlock();
>  	return size;
> @@ -1135,7 +1140,7 @@ int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)
>  int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
> -	unsigned long old_size;
> +	unsigned long old_size, low_size;
>  
>  	if (!kexec_trylock())
>  		return -EBUSY;
> @@ -1144,14 +1149,42 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>  		ret = -ENOENT;
>  		goto unlock;
>  	}
> -	old_size = !crashk_res.end ? 0 : resource_size(&crashk_res);
> +
> +	low_size = crash_resource_size(&crashk_low_res);
> +	old_size = crash_resource_size(&crashk_res) + low_size;
>  	new_size = roundup(new_size, KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN);
>  	if (new_size >= old_size) {
>  		ret = (new_size == old_size) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
>  		goto unlock;
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_res, new_size);
> +	/*
> +	 * (low_size > new_size) implies that low_size is greater than zero.
> +	 * This also means that if low_size is zero, the else branch is taken.
> +	 *
> +	 * If low_size is greater than 0, (low_size > new_size) indicates that
> +	 * crashk_low_res also needs to be shrunken. Otherwise, only crashk_res
> +	 * needs to be shrunken.
> +	 */
> +	if (low_size > new_size) {
> +		ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_res, 0);
> +		if (ret)
> +			goto unlock;
> +
> +		ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_low_res, new_size);
> +	} else {
> +		ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_res, new_size - low_size);
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Swap crashk_res and crashk_low_res if needed */
> +	if (!crashk_res.end && crashk_low_res.end) {
> +		crashk_res.start = crashk_low_res.start;
> +		crashk_res.end   = crashk_low_res.end;
> +		release_resource(&crashk_low_res);
> +		crashk_low_res.start = 0;
> +		crashk_low_res.end   = 0;
> +		insert_resource(&iomem_resource, &crashk_res);
> +	}
>  
>  unlock:
>  	kexec_unlock();
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

Re: [PATCH 6/6] kexec: enable kexec_crash_size to support two crash kernel regions

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2023/5/31 17:53, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 05/27/23 at 08:34pm, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> The crashk_low_res should be considered by /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size
>> to support two crash kernel regions. Since crashk_res manages the memory
>> with high address and crashk_low_res manages the memory with low address,
>> crashk_low_res is shrunken only when all crashk_res is shrunken. And
>> because when there is only one crash kernel region, crashk_res is always
>> used. Therefore, if all crashk_res is shrunken and crashk_low_res still
>> exists, swap them.
> 
> This looks good, otherwise someone else won't stop attempting to add
> support of crashk_low_res shrinking. Not sure if this will bring corner
> case issue in testing, let's see. For the patch log, I tried to
> rephrase, feel free to refer to.
> 
> =====
> The crashk_low_res should be considered by /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_size
> to support two crash kernel regions shrinking if existing.
> 
> While doing it, crashk_low_res will only be shrunk when the entire
> crashk_res is empty; and if the crashk_res is empty and crahk_low_res
> is not, change crashk_low_res to be crashk_res.
> =====
> 
> With the log updated, you can add:
> 
> Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>

OK, I will update the log and add Acked-by in v2.

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/kexec_core.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c
>> index e82bc6d6634136a..c1d50f6566300d9 100644
>> --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c
>> @@ -1091,6 +1091,11 @@ __bpf_kfunc void crash_kexec(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>  	}
>>  }
>>  
>> +static inline resource_size_t crash_resource_size(const struct resource *res)
>> +{
>> +	return !res->end ? 0 : resource_size(res);
>> +}
>> +
>>  ssize_t crash_get_memory_size(void)
>>  {
>>  	ssize_t size = 0;
>> @@ -1098,8 +1103,8 @@ ssize_t crash_get_memory_size(void)
>>  	if (!kexec_trylock())
>>  		return -EBUSY;
>>  
>> -	if (crashk_res.end != crashk_res.start)
>> -		size = resource_size(&crashk_res);
>> +	size += crash_resource_size(&crashk_res);
>> +	size += crash_resource_size(&crashk_low_res);
>>  
>>  	kexec_unlock();
>>  	return size;
>> @@ -1135,7 +1140,7 @@ int __crash_shrink_memory(struct resource *old_res, unsigned long new_size)
>>  int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>>  {
>>  	int ret = 0;
>> -	unsigned long old_size;
>> +	unsigned long old_size, low_size;
>>  
>>  	if (!kexec_trylock())
>>  		return -EBUSY;
>> @@ -1144,14 +1149,42 @@ int crash_shrink_memory(unsigned long new_size)
>>  		ret = -ENOENT;
>>  		goto unlock;
>>  	}
>> -	old_size = !crashk_res.end ? 0 : resource_size(&crashk_res);
>> +
>> +	low_size = crash_resource_size(&crashk_low_res);
>> +	old_size = crash_resource_size(&crashk_res) + low_size;
>>  	new_size = roundup(new_size, KEXEC_CRASH_MEM_ALIGN);
>>  	if (new_size >= old_size) {
>>  		ret = (new_size == old_size) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
>>  		goto unlock;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_res, new_size);
>> +	/*
>> +	 * (low_size > new_size) implies that low_size is greater than zero.
>> +	 * This also means that if low_size is zero, the else branch is taken.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * If low_size is greater than 0, (low_size > new_size) indicates that
>> +	 * crashk_low_res also needs to be shrunken. Otherwise, only crashk_res
>> +	 * needs to be shrunken.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (low_size > new_size) {
>> +		ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_res, 0);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			goto unlock;
>> +
>> +		ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_low_res, new_size);
>> +	} else {
>> +		ret = __crash_shrink_memory(&crashk_res, new_size - low_size);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* Swap crashk_res and crashk_low_res if needed */
>> +	if (!crashk_res.end && crashk_low_res.end) {
>> +		crashk_res.start = crashk_low_res.start;
>> +		crashk_res.end   = crashk_low_res.end;
>> +		release_resource(&crashk_low_res);
>> +		crashk_low_res.start = 0;
>> +		crashk_low_res.end   = 0;
>> +		insert_resource(&iomem_resource, &crashk_res);
>> +	}
>>  
>>  unlock:
>>  	kexec_unlock();
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>
> 
> .
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei