[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3075ec06-df9e-3532-82fa-cb2ca227c86b@roeck-us.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 09:35:59 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...ian.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuahkh@....samsung.com,
patches@...nelci.org, ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk,
lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/92] 4.9.81-stable review
On 02/17/2018 05:45 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 02:31:53PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 16:29 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S: Assembler messages:
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S:260: Error: unrecognized opcode: `rfi_to_user'
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S:270: Error: unrecognized opcode: `rfi_to_kernel'
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S:885: Error: unrecognized opcode: `rfi_to_user'
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S:900: Error: unrecognized opcode: `rfi_to_kernel'
>>>>
>>>> Looks like 222f20f140623 ("powerpc/64s: Simple RFI macro conversions") is missing,
>>>> or at least part of it. Unfortunately it doesn't apply cleanly.
>>>
>>> Ugh. Let's see if the ppc developers care about this or not :)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in Debian we extracted the following hunk from 222f20f140623 to fix build on
>> powerpc/ppc64el. Only compile tested against Debian builds though.
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
>> index 3320bcac7192..e68faa4d1b13 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
>> @@ -37,6 +37,11 @@
>> #include <asm/tm.h>
>> #include <asm/ppc-opcode.h>
>> #include <asm/export.h>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S
>> +#include <asm/exception-64s.h>
>> +#else
>> +#include <asm/exception-64e.h>
>> +#endif
>>
>
> Ah, thanks! I've now queued up this portion of the patch.
>
Hmm, that chunk really doesn't do what the original patch is supposed to do,
meaning it won't provide the vulnerability protection it is supposed to provide
(AFAICS that is Meltdown). Just a note in case anyone is concerned about
actually providing that protection.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists