arm64: export memblock_reserve()d regions via /proc/iomem
There has been some confusion around what is necessary to prevent kexec overwriting important memory regions. memblock: reserve, or nomap? Only memblock nomap regions are reported via /proc/iomem, kexec's user-space doesn't know about memblock_reserve()d regions. Until commit f56ab9a5 ("efi/arm: Don't mark ACPI reclaim memory as MEMBLOCK_NOMAP") the ACPI tables were nomap, now they are reserved and thus possible for kexec to overwrite with the new kernel or initrd. But this was always broken, as the UEFI memory map is also reserved and not marked as nomap. Exporting both nomap and reserved memblock types is a nuisance as they live in different memblock structures which we can't walk at the same time. Take a second walk over memblock.reserved and add new 'reserved' subnodes for the memblock_reserved() regions that aren't already described by the existing code. (e.g. Kernel Code) We use reserve_region_with_split() to find the gaps in existing named regions. This handles the gap between 'kernel code' and 'kernel data' which is memblock_reserve()d, but already partially described by request_standard_resources(). e.g.: | 80000000-dfffffff : System RAM | 80080000-80ffffff : Kernel code | 81000000-8158ffff : reserved | 81590000-8237efff : Kernel data | a0000000-dfffffff : Crash kernel | e00f0000-f949ffff : System RAM reserve_region_with_split needs kzalloc() which isn't available when request_standard_resources() is called, use an initcall. Reported-by: NBhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com> Reported-by: NTyler Baicar <tbaicar@codeaurora.org> Suggested-by: NAkashi Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: NJames Morse <james.morse@arm.com> Fixes: d28f6df1 ("arm64/kexec: Add core kexec support") Reviewed-by: NArd Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Showing
想要评论请 注册 或 登录