Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Sep 2016 15:36:42 +0800 | From | Chen Yu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][v8] PM / hibernate: Verify the consistent of e820 memory map by md5 value |
| |
Hi Pavel, On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:15:52PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2016-08-30 13:54:44, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 04:35:05 PM joeyli wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 03:41:23PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 09:15:00AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > Sounds about as easy as hot unplugging arbitrary memory address. IOW > > > > > "not easy". > > > > > > > > Regardless, forcibly panicking the system more is still the wrong > > > > approach IMO. > > > > > > > > Instead, I'd try to issue a big fat warning that BIOS corrupts E820 and > > > > that the user should disable hibernation on that box and never ever > > > > enable it again. > > > > > > > > After that, the kernel should *disable* hibernation for the current boot > > > > so any further hibernation runs don't even happen. Maybe even taint > > > > itself. > > > > > > > > > > I support this idea to disable hibernation when kernel detected e820 layout > > > was changed by BIOS. If system resume luckily then kernel should warn to user > > > and refuse to hibernate again. User must to know that's better to reboot > > > system when he saw the warning message after lucky resume. > > > > > > Not just BIOS doesn't fix e820 layout. There have some machines doesn't provide > > > _S4_ function, so the hibernation fallbacks to "shutdown" mode because "platform" > > > mode unavailable. In this situation, user is just lucky to run the hibernation. > > > Kernel should warn to user and disable hibernation when detected e820 layout > > > changed. > > > > Well, please see my reply to Boris. > > > > Pavel is right that running after detecting an e820 mismatch is generally risky, > > so why don't we shut down the system (but try to do that cleanly instead of > > causing it to panic right away) on an e820 mismatch? > > I don't think that's good idea. > > Anything involving userspace is risky at that point, and clean > shutdown means a _lot_ of userspace. > > We know the filesystems are reasonably clean as we sync-ed > them; I believe right solution is to panic -- on-disk state is pretty > good and we don't want to do anything risky. > OK, we tried a milder solution that doesn't shutdown the system in the latest version, which terminates the restore process if a mismatch is found (hope people would be happy with that one :) Here's the patch link per yours and Rafael's last comments on the old patch, and I'm still doing some small adjustment and will send a newer one but it is approximately similar to the following link:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9310497/
| |