linux-kernel - Re: x86: Regression in 3.6.4, bisected to "Exclude E820

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20121029183250.GB4623@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:32:50 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: x86: Regression in 3.6.4, bisected to "Exclude E820_RESERVED
 regions..."

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:10:39PM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 29.10.2012 17:59, schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> >On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:19:32PM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
> >>Am 29.10.2012 11:22, schrieb Alexander Holler:
> >>>Hello,
> >>>
> >>>I've just bisected a problem with 3.6.4.
> >>>
> >>>I had to revert commit 54ce8ce298f382a06186cb4672ad6aa090b050b6
> >>>(1bbbbe779aabe1f0768c2bf8f8c0a5583679b54a in mainline), otherwise my box
> >>>didn't boot.
> >>>
> >>>I can't provide any output, because I don't see if that commit is
> >>>applied. ;)
> >>
> >>That sentence missed an 'any'. But I've now attached a serial, here is
> >>the output:
> >
> >Thanks for this, it should be fixed in the next 3.6.y release, we needed
> >to add two more commits from upstream:
> >	844ab6f993b1d32eb40512503d35ff6ad0c57030
> >	f82f64dd9f485e13f29f369772d4a0e868e5633a
> >If you apply those two, and it doesn't solve the problem for you, please
> >let us know.
> 
> They don't applied cleanly, but after fixing the conflicts it seem's
> to work.

The conflict was in the printk, right?  I fixed that up in the 3.4
stable tree.

> Of course, I don't know the difference with applying those two
> commits or reverting the commit in 3.6.4, but I assume it's better
> to add the two instead of reverting the one (I'm currently to lazy
> to read and understand the commit-messages). ;)

Fixing problems is good :)

greg k-h
--
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/