From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDACB13DDAA for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722252538; cv=none; b=Zw5gyvQeKCRkOjosB3NMcmFm8a+5T0qwiv0GS+PANUkDNFs10CfJk/uDUadmqHmg9aLRmJV73pObVwzssEFddWH7Q8t30bdxxHuO2e8lhJKojEBZS9lWL8MNlYDTVuDjSL6qMUNsMYOkULVXn/x2G6IMJapPKZ+MR2SAdTeDd0g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722252538; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jGZICm5Yh0dno5ciac0lyY4bvB6Z0hi6Yz9HtOgBPiI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=TNRbDC5qJoM0wVCYF5LB0/BMJUjyJB49QEIr5esOqZvu1rXoft3+kIrhR3SPMFcCpg3BQ9lqZazz81z8Muohmj3UhQS9pnLSXJGsJaikKOL5mPQsN37ofYAwkvYY7rOONd5zkFWLbjan25qKSl+/c9ZFC8F3udElgICam1um1pQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.254]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WXbgv5hxKznbLP; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:27:55 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemi100008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.221.188.57]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CF461800D0; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:28:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.254] (10.67.109.254) by kwepemi100008.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:28:51 +0800 Message-ID: <96aae430-1bbf-1274-d6d1-262e93b5fe7d@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:28:50 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] crash: Fix crash memory reserve exceed system memory bug Content-Language: en-US To: Baoquan He CC: , , , , , , , , , , References: <20240723020746.3945016-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <564e362d-5e8c-5d23-9c54-bfb811794169@huawei.com> From: Jinjie Ruan In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.180) To kwepemi100008.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.57) On 2024/7/29 11:29, Baoquan He wrote: > On 07/29/24 at 11:24am, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >> >> >> On 2024/7/23 13:17, Baoquan He wrote: >>> On 07/23/24 at 10:07am, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >>>> On x86_32 Qemu machine with 1GB memory, the cmdline "crashkernel=4G" is ok >>>> as below: >>>> crashkernel reserved: 0x0000000020000000 - 0x0000000120000000 (4096 MB) >>>> >>>> It's similar on other architectures, such as ARM32 and RISCV32. >>>> >>>> The cause is that the crash_size is parsed and printed with "unsigned long >>>> long" data type which is 8 bytes but allocated used with "phys_addr_t" >>>> which is 4 bytes in memblock_phys_alloc_range(). >>>> >>>> Fix it by checking if crash_size is greater than system RAM size and >>>> return error if so. >>>> >>>> After this patch, there is no above confusing reserve success info. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan >>>> Suggested-by: Baoquan He >>>> Suggested-by: Mike Rapoport >>> >>> >>> My Suggested-by can be taken off because I suggested to check the parsed >>> value after parse_crashkernel(), Mike's suggestion is better. >> >> Hi, Can the suggested-by be removed when this version is merged, or a >> new version needs to be sent? > > You can send a new one and CC Andrew. Thank you! > >