On 11/25/22 at 06:52am, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > Hi Baoquan > > Thanks for your review! > > On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 03:58, Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 11/24/22 at 11:23pm, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > > > Usually crash_image is defined statically via the crashkernel parameter > > > or DT. > > > > > > But if the crash kernel is not used, or is smaller than then > > > area pre-allocated that memory is wasted. > > > > > > Also, if the crash kernel was not defined at bootime, there is no way to > > > use the crash kernel. > > > > > > Enable runtime allocation of the crash_image if the crash_image is not > > > defined statically. Following the same memory allocation/validation path > > > that for the reboot kexec kernel. > > > > We don't check if the crashkernel memory region is valid in kernel, but > > we do have done the check in kexec-tools utility. Since both kexec_load and > > kexec_file_load need go through path of kexec-tools loading, we haven't > > got problem with lack of the checking in kernel. > > Not sure if I follow you. > > We currently check if the crash kernel is in the right place at > sanity_check_segment_list() > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/kexec_core.c#n239
And it's not checking if crashkernel memory is valid in sanity_check_segment_list(), right? It's checking if the segments are placed correctly. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
