Re: [PATCHv2] x86/boot/KASLR: skip the specified crashkernel reserved region

[Pingfan Liu]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:34 PM Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 03/29/19 at 03:25pm, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:27 PM Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 03/29/19 at 01:45pm, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:34 PM Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 03/22/19 at 03:52pm, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > > > > On 03/22/19 at 03:43pm, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > +/* parse crashkernel=x@y option */
> > > > > > > > > +static void mem_avoid_crashkernel_simple(char *option)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Chao ever mentioned this, I want to ask again, why does it has to be
> > > > > > > > xxx_simple()?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seems that I had replied Chao's question in another email. The naming
> > > > > > > follows the function parse_crashkernel_simple(), as the notes above
> > > > > >                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, I don't get.  typo?
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I misunderstood it. We do have parse_crashkernel_simple() to handle
> > > > > crashkernel=size[@offset] case, to differente with other complicated
> > > > > cases, like crashkernel=size,[high|low],
> > > > >
> > > > > Then I am fine with this naming. Soryy about the noise.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, do you think if we should take care of this case:
> > > > > crashkernel=<range1>:<size1>[,<range2>:<size2>,...][@offset]
> > > > >
> > > > > It can also specify @offset. Not sure if it's too complicated, you may
> > > > > have a investigation.
> > > > >
> > > > In this case, kernel should get the total memory size info. So
> > > > process_e820_entries() or process_efi_entries() should be called
> > > > twice. One before handle_mem_options(), so crashkernel can evaluate
> > > > the reserved size. It is doable, and what is your opinion about the
> > >
> > > You mean calling process_e820_entries to calculate the RAM size in
> > > system? I may not do like that, please check what __find_max_addr() is
> > > doing. Did I get it?
> >
> > Yes, you got my meaning. But __find_max_addr() relies on the info, fed
> > by e820__memblock_setup(). It also involves the iteration of all e820
> > entries to get the max address. No essential difference, right?
>
> Hmm, I would say iterating e820 or efi entries to get the mas addr should be
> different with calling process_e820_entries(). The 1st is much simpler,
> right?
>
Yes. My original meaning is to reuse process_e820_entries(), but does
not call process_mem_region() at the first time.

Thanks,
Pingfan