[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180220104025.GA9589@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 11:40:25 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...ian.org>,
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 Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 09:35:59AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 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.
Good point, I've renamed this patch now to make it more obvious what is
going on.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists