[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180824145431.GC4253@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:54:31 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To: Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, bp@...e.de,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, luto@...nel.org,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, bp@...en8.de, brgerst@...il.com,
davej@...emonkey.org.uk, dvlasenk@...hat.com,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, toshi.kani@...com,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Yazen.Ghannam@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 103/105] Revert "x86/mm/pat: Ensure cpa->pfn only
contains page frame numbers"
On Thu, 23 Aug, at 09:37:28AM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > > This is bad enough that 4.4.148 and all newer 4.4.y crash early in
> > > boot on some EFI systems that I have.
> >
> > Ugh, not good.
> >
> > > For now I am re-applying the "ensure cpa->pfn only contains page frame
> > > numbers" patch, ported on top of 4.4.151.
> >
> > I can try to add it back and see what blows up, want me to attempt that?
>
> Not sure what to say... the current state is obviously broken. If you
> look at what 02ff2769edbc is doing, it's clear that we're now shifting
> cpa->pfn by PAGE_SHIFT where we weren't before, so we're putting bogus
> values in the page table. And this is enough that my server system
> booting with EFI crashes early in boot efi_enter_virtual_mode() with
> the symptom that NX is improperly set on some pages (booting with
> "noexec=off" fixes things, although obviously I don't want to run that
> way). FWIW I can confirm that reverting the single patch 02ff2769edbc
> fixes things, as does the cpa->pfn fix I mentioned above.
>
> It's hard for me to make a call on applying "ensure cpa->pfn only
> contains page frame numbers" without knowing the problems it caused
> before. The patch looks fine to me and I definitely need it, but
> maybe it exposes some other bug elsewhere? Maybe Ben or Matt remember
> more above why this was reverted in 4.4.106? Otherwise I'd say yeah,
> we should re-apply it, since I don't think we want to revert
> 02ff2769edbc.
For the record, I wasn't even aware it had been reverted.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists