6:29 a.m.
While testing my search patch, I kicked off an unconstrained physical
search on a live session and hung the machine so thoroughly that it
required a visit to the machine room to physically unplug it to get the
remote console back up. Coincidence? Or should physical address search
on a live session be constrained somehow for safety?
Bob Montgomery
11:18 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
While testing my search patch, I kicked off an unconstrained
physical
search on a live session and hung the machine so thoroughly that it
required a visit to the machine room to physically unplug it to get the
remote console back up. Coincidence? Or should physical address search
on a live session be constrained somehow for safety?
Bob Montgomery
Maybe so -- I had no problem with any of the systems I've tested it on.
Is it always reproducible on that system?
And does that system use /dev/mem or /dev/crash?
It would be interesting to know if a particular physical address caused it,
or if there are physical pages that are read that are *not* read when an
unconstrained kernel virtual search is done?
Dave
4:54 a.m.
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 15:18 +0000, Dave Anderson wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> While testing my search patch, I kicked off an unconstrained physical
> search on a live session and hung the machine so thoroughly that it
> required a visit to the machine room to physically unplug it to get the
> remote console back up. Coincidence? Or should physical address search
> on a live session be constrained somehow for safety?
>
> Bob Montgomery
Maybe so -- I had no problem with any of the systems I've tested it on.
Is it always reproducible on that system?
I'll let you know when I get a chance
to test again. If it fails like
it did before, it will tie up two of us for the 10-minute walk to the
machine room where I don't currently have access :-).
And does that system use /dev/mem or /dev/crash?
/dev/mem
It would be interesting to know if a particular physical address caused it,
or if there are physical pages that are read that are *not* read when an
unconstrained kernel virtual search is done?
The pages should have been copied to the buffer a page at a time, right?
So the search access pattern within the buffer shouldn't affect how
physical memory was accessed (I was thinking that string search's byte
aligned access might have mattered). Could the physical search come
up with a page in /dev/mem that wouldn't also be accessed in the
identity-mapped virtual case?
Bob M.
Dave
5:59 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 15:18 +0000, Dave Anderson wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > While testing my search patch, I kicked off an unconstrained physical
> > search on a live session and hung the machine so thoroughly that it
> > required a visit to the machine room to physically unplug it to get the
> > remote console back up. Coincidence? Or should physical address search
> > on a live session be constrained somehow for safety?
> >
> > Bob Montgomery
>
> Maybe so -- I had no problem with any of the systems I've tested it on.
>
> Is it always reproducible on that system?
I'll let you know when I get a chance to test again. If it fails like
it did before, it will tie up two of us for the 10-minute walk to the
machine room where I don't currently have access :-).
>
> And does that system use /dev/mem or /dev/crash?
/dev/mem
>
> It would be interesting to know if a particular physical address caused it,
> or if there are physical pages that are read that are *not* read when an
> unconstrained kernel virtual search is done?
The pages should have been copied to the buffer a page at a time, right?
So the search access pattern within the buffer shouldn't affect how
physical memory was accessed (I was thinking that string search's byte
aligned access might have mattered). Could the physical search come
up with a page in /dev/mem that wouldn't also be accessed in the
identity-mapped virtual case?
I believe so...
Physical address searches start at the "start_paddr" page in node 0's
entry in the vt->node_table[] array, seen easiest by "help -v":
crash> help -v
... [ cut ] ...
numnodes: 1
nr_zones: 4
nr_free_areas: 11
node_table[0]:
id: 0
pgdat: ffff81000000b000
size: 261642
present: 256704
mem_map: ffff8100006e6000
start_paddr: 0
start_mapnr: 0
dump_free_pages: dump_free_pages_zones_v2()
dump_kmem_cache: dump_kmem_cache_percpu_v2()
...
In the example above, there's only 1 node, and so the physcal
search would search from physical page 0, for 261642 pages.
It would fail when reaching the page beyond the end of the
node, and would call next_physpage() to get the first page of
the next node if it exists. However, it would also fail when
reading the non-existent "non-present" pages -- if any -- and in
each case, next_physpage() would just bump the request up to
the next page. So the sample system above, there would be
261642-256704 readmem() failures.
Kernel virtual memory searches will start as directed by the
machdep->get_kvaddr_ranges() call, and then for each page in the ranges,
it will be translated to its physical memory page by readmem() and read.
Whenever a readmem() fails, next_kpage() will be called for the next
legitimate page to attempt, which does different things depending
upon the type of virtual memory. But for identity-mapped pages,
it uses next_identity_mapping(), which also uses the vt->node_table[]
array similar to physical address searches. However, the search_virtual()
loop does a kvtop() on each virtual address, and then a phys_to_page() on the
returned physical address before it attempts a readmem():
if (!kvtop(CURRENT_CONTEXT(), pp, &paddr, 0) ||
!phys_to_page(paddr, &page)) {
if (!next_kpage(pp, &pp))
goto done;
continue;
Whereas search_physical() loop has no restrictions:
if (!readmem(ppp, PHYSADDR, pagebuf, PAGESIZE(),
"search page", RETURN_ON_ERROR|QUIET)) {
if (!next_physpage(ppp, &ppp))
break;
continue;
}
I'm thinking that search_physical() should probably do a phys_to_page()
qualifier before attempting each readmem()? I never saw a problem on several
different architectures that I tested it on, but can you try patching that in
(i.e., putting in phys_to_page() qualifier) on that particular machine and see
what happens?
And if that fails, and if it's reproducible, I guess you could to a flushed
write of the address of each page to a file before it's accessed so that it
would be written to disk before it's even read. Then after your 10-minute
stroll for two, and subsequent reboot, perhaps the offensive physical
address could be nailed down?
But doing the phys_to_page() before the read seems reasonable.
Dave
Bob M.
> Dave
>
>
6:15 a.m.
New subject: Crash physical search on live session not recommended :-)
----- Original Message -----
crash> help -v
... [ cut ] ...
numnodes: 1
nr_zones: 4
nr_free_areas: 11
node_table[0]:
id: 0
pgdat: ffff81000000b000
size: 261642
present: 256704
mem_map: ffff8100006e6000
start_paddr: 0
start_mapnr: 0
dump_free_pages: dump_free_pages_zones_v2()
dump_kmem_cache: dump_kmem_cache_percpu_v2()
...
But doing the phys_to_page() before the read seems reasonable.
Although, it may not make a difference at all. On the system
above, all of the pages in the node have page structures
associated with them, even with SPARSEMEM_EX, so it doesn't
make a difference. And if I search just the unity-map region,
the CRASHDEBUG(1) output is identical with respect to the
number of pages read vs. checked.
Dave
8:13 a.m.
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 21:59 +0000, Dave Anderson wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 15:18 +0000, Dave Anderson wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > While testing my search patch, I kicked off an unconstrained physical
> > > search on a live session and hung the machine so thoroughly that it
> > > required a visit to the machine room to physically unplug it to get the
> > > remote console back up. Coincidence? Or should physical address search
> > > on a live session be constrained somehow for safety?
> > >
> > > Bob Montgomery
> >
> > Maybe so -- I had no problem with any of the systems I've tested it on.
> >
> > Is it always reproducible on that system?
> I'll let you know when I get a chance to test again. If it fails like
> it did before, it will tie up two of us for the 10-minute walk to the
> machine room where I don't currently have access :-).
> >
> > And does that system use /dev/mem or /dev/crash?
> /dev/mem
>
> >
> > It would be interesting to know if a particular physical address caused it,
> > or if there are physical pages that are read that are *not* read when an
> > unconstrained kernel virtual search is done?
>
> The pages should have been copied to the buffer a page at a time, right?
> So the search access pattern within the buffer shouldn't affect how
> physical memory was accessed (I was thinking that string search's byte
> aligned access might have mattered). Could the physical search come
> up with a page in /dev/mem that wouldn't also be accessed in the
> identity-mapped virtual case?
I believe so...
Kernel virtual memory searches will start as directed by the
machdep->get_kvaddr_ranges() call, and then for each page in the ranges,
it will be translated to its physical memory page by readmem() and read.
Whenever a readmem() fails, next_kpage() will be called for the next
legitimate page to attempt, which does different things depending
upon the type of virtual memory. But for identity-mapped pages,
it uses next_identity_mapping(), which also uses the vt->node_table[]
array similar to physical address searches. However, the search_virtual()
loop does a kvtop() on each virtual address, and then a phys_to_page() on the
returned physical address before it attempts a readmem():
if (!kvtop(CURRENT_CONTEXT(), pp, &paddr, 0) ||
!phys_to_page(paddr, &page)) {
if (!next_kpage(pp, &pp))
goto done;
continue;
I modified a version of crash to *not* do any of the readmem's, but to
just report what it would have tried to read, and to also report any
pages rejected by the above test.
On my live system, the virtual search rejected all physical pages
between 0xe0000000 and 0xfffff000 because of the phys_to_page test,
whereas the physical search would have tried a readmem on all 131072
pages in that range.
Here's what /proc/iomem says I would have been reading on my live system
between 0xe0000000 and 0xfffff000:
...
df64d000-e3ffffff : reserved
e0000000-e3ffffff : PCI MMCONFIG 0 [00-3f] <<<< FROM HERE
e0000000-e3ffffff : pnp 00:01
e4000000-e40fffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
e4000000-e407ffff : 0000:04:00.0
e4100000-e41fffff : PCI Bus 0000:10
e4100000-e411ffff : 0000:10:00.0
e4120000-e413ffff : 0000:10:00.1
e4200000-e42fffff : PCI Bus 0000:14
e4200000-e427ffff : 0000:14:00.0
e4300000-e43fffff : PCI Bus 0000:0d
e4300000-e433ffff : 0000:0d:00.0
e4340000-e437ffff : 0000:0d:00.1
e4400000-e44fffff : PCI Bus 0000:07
e4400000-e447ffff : 0000:07:00.0
e4500000-e45fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
e4500000-e450ffff : 0000:02:00.0
e4510000-e451ffff : 0000:02:00.1
e4600000-e46fffff : PCI Bus 0000:03
e4600000-e460ffff : 0000:03:00.0
e4610000-e461ffff : 0000:03:00.1
e7ffe000-e7ffffff : pnp 00:01
e8000000-efffffff : PCI Bus 0000:01
e8000000-efffffff : 0000:01:03.0
f1df0000-f1df03ff : 0000:00:1d.7
f1df0000-f1df03ff : ehci_hcd
f1e00000-f1ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:01
f1e00000-f1e1ffff : 0000:01:03.0
f1e20000-f1e2ffff : 0000:01:04.2
f1ef0000-f1ef00ff : 0000:01:04.6
f1ef0000-f1ef0001 : ipmi_si
f1f00000-f1f7ffff : 0000:01:04.2
f1f00000-f1f7ffff : hpilo
f1fc0000-f1fc3fff : 0000:01:04.2
f1fc0000-f1fc3fff : hpilo
f1fd0000-f1fd07ff : 0000:01:04.2
f1fd0000-f1fd07ff : hpilo
f1fe0000-f1fe01ff : 0000:01:04.0
f1ff0000-f1ffffff : 0000:01:03.0
f2000000-f5ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
f2000000-f3ffffff : 0000:02:00.1
f2000000-f3ffffff : bnx2
f4000000-f5ffffff : 0000:02:00.0
f4000000-f5ffffff : bnx2
f6000000-f9ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:03
f6000000-f7ffffff : 0000:03:00.1
f6000000-f7ffffff : bnx2
f8000000-f9ffffff : 0000:03:00.0
f8000000-f9ffffff : bnx2
faf00000-fb3fffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
faff0000-faff0fff : 0000:04:00.0
faff0000-faff0fff : cciss
fb000000-fb3fffff : 0000:04:00.0
fb000000-fb3fffff : cciss
fb500000-fb5fffff : PCI Bus 0000:07
fb580000-fb5bffff : 0000:07:00.0
fb580000-fb5bffff : mpt2sas
fb5f0000-fb5f3fff : 0000:07:00.0
fb5f0000-fb5f3fff : mpt2sas
fb600000-fb7fffff : PCI Bus 0000:0a
fb6f0000-fb6f3fff : 0000:0a:00.0
fb6f0000-fb6f3fff : e1000e
fb700000-fb77ffff : 0000:0a:00.0
fb700000-fb77ffff : e1000e
fb7e0000-fb7fffff : 0000:0a:00.0
fb7e0000-fb7fffff : e1000e
fb800000-fbbfffff : PCI Bus 0000:0d
fb800000-fb8fffff : 0000:0d:00.1
fb800000-fb8fffff : qla2xxx
fb9f0000-fb9f3fff : 0000:0d:00.1
fb9f0000-fb9f3fff : qla2xxx
fba00000-fbafffff : 0000:0d:00.0
fba00000-fbafffff : qla2xxx
fbbf0000-fbbf3fff : 0000:0d:00.0
fbbf0000-fbbf3fff : qla2xxx
fbc00000-fbcfffff : PCI Bus 0000:10
fbc80000-fbc9ffff : 0000:10:00.1
fbc80000-fbc9ffff : e1000e
fbca0000-fbcbffff : 0000:10:00.1
fbca0000-fbcbffff : e1000e
fbcc0000-fbcdffff : 0000:10:00.0
fbcc0000-fbcdffff : e1000e
fbce0000-fbcfffff : 0000:10:00.0
fbce0000-fbcfffff : e1000e
fbd00000-fbdfffff : PCI Bus 0000:14
fbd80000-fbdbffff : 0000:14:00.0
fbd80000-fbdbffff : mpt2sas
fbdf0000-fbdf3fff : 0000:14:00.0
fbdf0000-fbdf3fff : mpt2sas
fbe00000-fbffffff : PCI Bus 0000:17
fbef0000-fbef3fff : 0000:17:00.0
fbef0000-fbef3fff : e1000e
fbf00000-fbf7ffff : 0000:17:00.0
fbf00000-fbf7ffff : e1000e
fbfe0000-fbffffff : 0000:17:00.0
fbfe0000-fbffffff : e1000e
fe000000-febfffff : pnp 00:01
fec00000-fee0ffff : reserved
fec00000-fec00fff : IOAPIC 0
fec80000-fec80fff : IOAPIC 1
fed00000-fed003ff : HPET 0
fee00000-fee00fff : Local APIC
ff800000-ffffffff : reserved <<<<<<<<<<<<< TO
HERE
100000000-31fffefff : System RAM
...
I'm guessing that's bad :-) I'll implement the rejector code in the
physical search, and see if I can avoid a trip to the machine room.
Are your systems avoiding this because of a /dev/crash vs /dev/mem
difference?
Bob Montgomery
9:05 a.m.
New subject: Crash physical search on live session not recommended :-)
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 00:13 +0000, Montgomery, Bob wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 21:59 +0000, Dave Anderson wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 15:18 +0000, Dave Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > While testing my search patch, I kicked off an unconstrained
physical
> > > > search on a live session and hung the machine so thoroughly that it
> > > > required a visit to the machine room to physically unplug it to get
the
> > > > remote console back up. Coincidence? Or should physical address
search
> > > > on a live session be constrained somehow for safety?
I'm guessing that's bad :-) I'll implement the rejector code in the
physical search, and see if I can avoid a trip to the machine room.
Something like this? It seems to be surviving physical searches on my
live session now. Any reason this would thwart the purpose of the
physical search in any way? "But I wanted to search pci space..."
Bob Montgomery
10:08 p.m.
New subject: Crash physical search on live session not recommended :-)
----- Original Message -----
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 00:13 +0000, Montgomery, Bob wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 21:59 +0000, Dave Anderson wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 15:18 +0000, Dave Anderson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > While testing my search patch, I kicked off an unconstrained
physical
> > > > > search on a live session and hung the machine so thoroughly that
it
> > > > > required a visit to the machine room to physically unplug it to
get the
> > > > > remote console back up. Coincidence? Or should physical address
search
> > > > > on a live session be constrained somehow for safety?
>
> I'm guessing that's bad :-) I'll implement the rejector code in the
> physical search, and see if I can avoid a trip to the machine room.
Something like this? It seems to be surviving physical searches on my
live session now. Any reason this would thwart the purpose of the
physical search in any way? "But I wanted to search pci space..."
Nah -- it's meant for physical memory only.
Queued for version 5.1.3.
Thanks,
Dave
9:56 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
... [ cut ] ...
I'm guessing that's bad :-) I'll implement the rejector
code in the
physical search, and see if I can avoid a trip to the machine room.
Are your systems avoiding this because of a /dev/crash vs /dev/mem
difference?
Maybe so -- at least on the architectures that use /dev/crash,
i.e., those that impose CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM, because the RHEL
/dev/crash driver requires the pfn to get past page_is_ram().
But because page_is_ram() is not exported on non-RHEL kernels, the
page_is_ram() check is commented out of the sample /dev/crash driver
included in the crash source tree in the memory_driver subdirectory.
Dave
4980
days inactive
4986
days old
devel@lists.crash-utility.osci.io
8 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Bob Montgomery -
Dave Anderson