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  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]
Date:	Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:54:33 +0100
From:	Daniel Lezcano <>
To:	Mark Rutland <>,
	Christoffer Dall <>,
CC:	Marc Zyngier <>,
	"" <>,
	Catalin Marinas <>,
	Olof Johansson <>,
	Yingjoe Chen <>,
	Sonny Rao <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: arch_timer: Fix arm64 platforms not booting

On 12/29/2014 08:13 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> [Adding Arnd]
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 08:35:09AM +0000, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 09:46:20PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 2014-12-28 14:20, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>> Commit 0b46b8a718c6e ("clocksource: arch_timer: Fix code to...")
>>>> fixes
>>>> timer issues with certain ARMv7 platforms, but unfortunately breaks
>>>> arm64 platforms with hyp mode (EL2) enabled.
>>>> The commit only sets arch_timer_use_virtual to false under
>>>> but forgets that the config variable is also set in other code paths
>>>> (actually, right underneath the check in the patch) with detrimental
>>>> consequences as we've now introduced a direct early call to BUG() on
>>>> practically all arm64 platforms.
>>>> One could argue that this code could be refactored to use different
>>>> variables for checking which *timer* to use and which *counter* to
>>>> use,
>>>> which seems to be the desired difference between ARM and arm64 in
>>>> this
>>>> case, but this approach fixes an urgent issue for now.
>>>> Cc: Sonny Rao <>
>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <>
>>>> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <>
>>>> Cc: Olof Johansson <>
>>>> Cc: Mark Rutland <>
>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <>
>>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <>
>>>> Cc: Yingjoe Chen <>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <>
>>>> ---
>>>> This was apparently already discovered by Yingjoe Chen in this thread
>>>> and Catalin recommended a similar
>>>> fix.
>>> I'm increasingly worried about the time it takes to get such critical
>>> fixes into the tree (arm64 is *dead* without it).
>>> What is holding this patch which, as far as I remember, has been posted
>>> by Catalin almost three weeks ago?
>> I didn't find that since I didn't think I'd have to go back that long on
>> lakml for something that breaks boot of an entire architecture.  Sorry
>> for the confusion of a second patch, but fwiw, I now spent another few
>> hours bisecting this, so I would really like to see this fix go into
>> mainline ASAP as well to save others the trouble.
> Last I knew, Arnd was going to take the fix [1], which has been in
> arm-soc's for-next and fixes branches for almost two weeks now. It
> didn't make it into the last pull req due to some confusion over who was
> going to take it.

I asked arm-soc team to take the fix because it was depending on a patch 
which was already in their tree [1].

Merry Christmas

   -- Daniel


> Arnd, what's the plan for getting this into mainline ASAP?
> Mark.
> [1]

  <> │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <> Facebook |
<!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<> Blog

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists