From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-f200.google.com (mail-pg1-f200.google.com [209.85.215.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16CCE6B0008 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg1-f200.google.com with SMTP id m4-v6so2558623pgq.19 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z3-v6si10863441plb.228.2018.07.24.06.13.47 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 15:13:43 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] mm/kdump: exclude reserved pages in dumps Message-ID: <20180724131343.GK28386@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180720123422.10127-1-david@redhat.com> <9f46f0ed-e34c-73be-60ca-c892fb19ed08@suse.cz> <20180723123043.GD31229@dhcp22.suse.cz> <8daae80c-871e-49b6-1cf1-1f0886d3935d@redhat.com> <20180724072536.GB28386@dhcp22.suse.cz> <8eb22489-fa6b-9825-bc63-07867a40d59b@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8eb22489-fa6b-9825-bc63-07867a40d59b@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Vlastimil Babka , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Baoquan He , Dave Young , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Hari Bathini , Huang Ying , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marc-Andr=E9?= Lureau , Matthew Wilcox , Miles Chen , Pavel Tatashin , Petr Tesarik On Tue 24-07-18 14:17:12, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 24.07.2018 09:25, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 23-07-18 19:20:43, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> On 23.07.2018 14:30, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>> On Mon 23-07-18 13:45:18, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >>>> On 07/20/2018 02:34 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>>>> Dumping tools (like makedumpfile) right now don't exclude reserved pages. > >>>>> So reserved pages might be access by dump tools although nobody except > >>>>> the owner should touch them. > >>>> > >>>> Are you sure about that? Or maybe I understand wrong. Maybe it changed > >>>> recently, but IIRC pages that are backing memmap (struct pages) are also > >>>> PG_reserved. And you definitely do want those in the dump. > >>> > >>> You are right. reserve_bootmem_region will make all early bootmem > >>> allocations (including those backing memmaps) PageReserved. I have asked > >>> several times but I haven't seen a satisfactory answer yet. Why do we > >>> even care for kdump about those. If they are reserved the nobody should > >>> really look at those specific struct pages and manipulate them. Kdump > >>> tools are using a kernel interface to read the content. If the specific > >>> content is backed by a non-existing memory then they should simply not > >>> return anything. > >>> > >> > >> "new kernel" provides an interface to read memory from "old kernel". > >> > >> The new kernel has no idea about > >> - which memory was added/online in the old kernel > >> - where struct pages of the old kernel are and what their content is > >> - which memory is save to touch and which not > >> > >> Dump tools figure all that out by interpreting the VMCORE. They e.g. > >> identify "struct pages" and see if they should be dumped. The "new > >> kernel" only allows to read that memory. It cannot hinder to crash the > >> system (e.g. if a dump tool would try to read a hwpoison page). > >> > >> So how should the "new kernel" know if a page can be touched or not? > > > > I am sorry I am not familiar with kdump much. But from what I remember > > it reads from /proc/vmcore and implementation of this interface should > > simply return EINVAL or alike when you try to dump inaccessible memory > > range. > > Oh, and BTW, while something like -EINVAL could work, we usually don't > want to try to read certain pages at all (e.g. ballooned pages - > accessing the page might work but involves quite some overhead in the > hypervisor). > > So we should either handle this in dump tools (reserved + ...?) or while > doing the read similar to XEN (is_ram_page()). Yes, I think this is the proper way. Just test for PageOnline in read_from_oldmem/copy_oldmem_page. Btw. we already page pfn_to_online_page which performs the per-section online/offline status. This should be extendable to consider your new PageOffline state. > I wonder if we could convert the early allocated memory (PG_reserved) at > some point (buddy initialized) into ordinary "simply allocated" memory. I do not think so. There is good reason why we keep them reserved. There are many pfn walkers that simply shouldn't touch those pages. Maybe we can achieve a page reserve type for all usages but that will be a larger project I am afraid. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs