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  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, 9 Nov 2017 12:50:31 +0900
From:   Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.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

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:36:39AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 04:11:13PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> [171109 00:05]:
> > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 08:34:13AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > > * Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> [171108 07:43]:
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:48:42AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > > > > So it seems the issue is currently at the atomic_pool_init()
> > > > > > related code?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, your test showed it although I can't find any clue in
> > > > > atomic_pool_init().
> > > > > 
> > > > > Could you test updated branch?
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://github.com/JoonsooKim/linux/tree/cma-debug4-next-20180901
> > > > > 
> > > > > There are two relevant commits.
> > > > > 
> > > > > arm/dma: stop dma allocation before __dma_alloc_remap()
> > > > > arm/dma: disable atomic pool after dma allocation
> > > > > 
> > > > > atomic pool initialization will be done partially to check
> > > > > exact point of failure. These are brain-dead commits however I have no
> > > > > idea what's going on here until now. :/
> > > > 
> > > > OK that booted, dmesg output below. Hopefully that provides
> > > > you with some more clues.
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Could you let me know which one is booted? Both of them? or just top
> > > commit ("arm/dma: stop dma allocation before __dma_alloc_remap()")?
> > 
> > Oh OK. Only the top commit boots.
> 
> Okay! I will try to analyze!
> 

Could you test following two commits on my updated branch?

"arm/dma: vmalloc area allocation"
"arm/dma: defer atomic pool initialization"

I suspect that changed virtual address of the sram due to early
__dma_alloc_remap() call causes the problem and above two commits test
this theory.

Thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists