On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 09:05:49AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 02:22:30PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
CONFIG_CRASH_DM_CRYPT has been introduced to support LUKS-encrypted
device dump target by addressing two challenges [1],
- Kdump kernel may not be able to decrypt the LUKS partition. For some
machines, a system administrator may not have a chance to enter the
password to decrypt the device in kdump initramfs after the 1st kernel
crashes
- LUKS2 by default use the memory-hard Argon2 key derivation function
which is quite memory-consuming compared to the limited memory reserved
for kdump.
To also enable this feature for ARM64, we only need to add device tree
property dmcryptkeys [2] as similar to elfcorehdr to pass the memory
address of the stored info of dm-crypt keys to the kdump kernel.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
[2] https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/pull/181
Cc: Arnaud Lefebvre <[email protected]>
Cc: Baoquan he <[email protected]>
Cc: Dave Young <[email protected]>
Cc: Kairui Song <[email protected]>
Cc: Pingfan Liu <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Coiby Xu <[email protected]>
---
v2
- Krzysztof
- Use imperative mood for commit message
- Add dt-schema ABI Documentation
- Don't print dm-crypt keys address via pr_debug
Your changelog should explicitly document that this has external
dependency on dtschema pull request, so that maintainers know that.
Thanks for the lightning-fast reply!
And thanks for the reminder! I didn't know the dtschema pull request is
regarded as a dependency. Currently, I only add the dtschema pull
request URL to the commit message. I'll also include it in the
changelog.
Also, in the future:
Do not attach (thread) your patchsets to some other threads (unrelated
or older versions). This buries them deep in the mailbox and might
interfere with applying entire sets. See also:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.16-rc2/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L830
Thanks for pointing me to the above documentation! I thought adding
In-Reply-To to the V1 patch can provide better context since it's a
single patch. It seems this is not true for Devicetree. Is it because of
the documentation change thus we should treat it more like a multi-patch
series?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
Best regards,
Coiby
