On 11/06/25 at 06:01pm, Pingfan Liu wrote: > On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 4:01 PM Baoquan He <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 11/06/25 at 02:59pm, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > > When I tested kexec with the latest kernel, I ran into the following > > > warning: > > > > > > [ 40.712410] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > [ 40.712576] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 1562 at kernel/kexec_core.c:1001 > > > kimage_map_segment+0x144/0x198 > > > [...] > > > [ 40.816047] Call trace: > > > [ 40.818498] kimage_map_segment+0x144/0x198 (P) > > > [ 40.823221] ima_kexec_post_load+0x58/0xc0 > > > [ 40.827246] __do_sys_kexec_file_load+0x29c/0x368 > > > [...] > > > [ 40.855423] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- > > > > > > This is caused by the fact that kexec allocates the destination directly > > > in the CMA area. In that case, the CMA kernel address should be exported > > > directly to the IMA component, instead of using the vmalloc'd address. > > > > Well, you didn't update the log accordingly. > > > > I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean the earlier content which I > replied to you?
No. In v1, you return cma directly. But in v2, you return its direct mapping address, isnt' it? > > > Do you know why cma area can't be mapped into vmalloc? > > > Should not the kernel direct mapping be used? When image->segment_cma[i] has value, image->ima_buffer_addr also contains the physical address of the cma area, why cma physical address can't be mapped into vmalloc and cause the failure and call trace?
