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]
Date:   Thu, 7 Sep 2017 09:16:51 -0700
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, pali.rohar@...il.com, sre@...nel.org,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, khilman@...nel.org,
        aaro.koskinen@....fi, ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com,
        patrikbachan@...il.com, serge@...lyn.com, abcloriens@...il.com,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: n900 in next-20170901

* Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> [170907 00:30]:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 06:30:57AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > * Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> [170905 16:32]:
> > > I think that I made a mistake for configuration CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y and
> > > CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP=y. In this case, the MOVABLE_ZONE can
> > > be *!highmem*. Could you check that your configuration have above
> > > options?
> > 
> > CONFIG_HIGHMEM is set yeah.
> > 
> > > And, could you check that following patch works for you?
> > 
> > Does not seem to help, tried against next with just 9caf25f996e8
> > revert and also with 9caf25f996e8.
> 
> Oops. I misunderstood your problem. Could you test with
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL?

Sure.

> After commit 9caf25f996e8, user for CMA memory should use to check
> PageHighmem in order to get proper virtual address of the page. If
> someone doesn't use it, it is possible to use wrong virtual address
> and it then causes the use of wrong physical address.
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL would catch this case.

OK, no extra output of current next with CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL=y.
Booting of n900 hangs with just the same error:

save_secure_sram() returns 0000ff02

> If it doesn't help, is there a way to test n900 configuration in QEMU?

I doubt that QEMU n900 boots in secure mode but instead shows
the SoC as general purpose SoC. If so, you'd have to patch the
omap3_save_secure_ram_context() to attempt to save secure RAM
context in all cases. If that works then debugging with any
omap3 board like beagleboard in QEMU should work.

Regards,

Tony

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ