[PATCH 1/3] proc/vmcore: Do not map unaccepted memory
Dave Hansen
dave.hansen at intel.com
Thu Sep 7 08:51:06 PDT 2023
On 9/7/23 08:44, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 7/09/23 18:39, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 9/6/23 00:39, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> @@ -559,7 +567,8 @@ static int vmcore_remap_oldmem_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> * pages without a reason.
>>> */
>>> idx = srcu_read_lock(&vmcore_cb_srcu);
>>> - if (!list_empty(&vmcore_cb_list))
>>> + if (!list_empty(&vmcore_cb_list) ||
>>> + range_contains_unaccepted_memory(paddr, paddr + size))
>>> ret = remap_oldmem_pfn_checked(vma, from, pfn, size, prot);
>>> else
>>> ret = remap_oldmem_pfn_range(vma, from, pfn, size, prot);
>> The whole callback mechanism which fs/proc/vmcore.c::pfn_is_ram()
>> implements seems to be in place to ensure that there aren't a billion
>> different "ram" checks in here.
>>
>> Is there a reason you can't register_vmcore_cb() a callback to check for
>> unaccepted memory?
> Someone asked for the change to be in arch-independent code... 😉
That doesn't really answer my question. virtio_mem_init_kdump(), for
instance, is in arch-independent code.
More information about the kexec
mailing list