| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:32:16 -0700 From: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: order functions in cpu/common.c and cpu/common_64.c On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote: >> >> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote: >> >>> > i've pushed out the broken tree into tip/tmp.master.broken (havent >>> > updated tip/master with the breakage). I've removed the broken >>> > printk in kernel/resource.c that Andrew found, see commit >>> > 06e44f6af324 - so that's not the cause. >>> >>> i've double checked that 06e44f6af324 is applied. I'll bisect this. >> >> bisection came up with: >> >> # good: [8bfd9710] Merge branch 'x86/xsave' >> # bad: [06e44f6a] IO resources: fix/remove printk >> # good: [282a5f84] Merge branch 'irq/sparseirq' >> # bad: [a0854a46] x86: make 32bit support show_msr like 64 bit >> # good: [5031088d] x86: delay early cpu initialization until cpuid is >> # good: [9d31d35b] x86: order functions in cpu/common.c and cpu/commo >> # bad: [10a434fc] x86: remove cpu_vendor_dev >> >> | 10a434fcb23a57c385177a0086955fae01003f64 is first bad commit >> | commit 10a434fcb23a57c385177a0086955fae01003f64 >> | Author: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> >> | Date: Thu Sep 4 21:09:45 2008 +0200 >> | >> | x86: remove cpu_vendor_dev >> >> and the thing is, 10a434fc is way too big: >> >> | 15 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-) >> >> and it's not obvious at first (neither at second) sight what the problem >> is. You really need to start doing much smaller patches for such >> critical/hard-to-debug code areas. >> > could be alignment again... ffffffff80d86c20 d __cpu_dev_amd_cpu_dev ffffffff80d86c20 A __x86_cpu_dev_start ffffffff80d86c28 d __dyn_array_ptr_irq_2_pin_head ffffffff80d86c28 D __dyn_array_start ffffffff80d86c30 d __dyn_array_ptr_irq_cfgx ffffffff80d86c38 d __dyn_array_ptr_sparse_irqs ffffffff80d86c40 D __dyn_array_end ffffffff80d86c40 d __initcall_selinux_init ffffffff80d86c40 D __per_cpu_dyn_array_end ffffffff80d86c40 D __per_cpu_dyn_array_start ffffffff80d86c40 D __security_initcall_start ffffffff80d86c48 R __parainstructions ffffffff80d86c48 D __security_initcall_end ffffffff80d86c48 A __x86_cpu_dev_end don't know how could the linker squash others tables into cpu_dev pointer array.. YH -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists