linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 15

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:   Tue, 16 Oct 2018 16:36:56 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 15

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 03:13:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:24:39 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:12:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:26:37 -0700 Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ALl ppc qemu tests (including big endian pseries) also generate a warning.
> > > > 
> > > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/memblock.c:1301 .memblock_alloc_range_nid+0x20/0x68
> > 
> > That is:
> > 
> > static phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
> >                                         phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t start,
> >                                         phys_addr_t end, int nid,
> >                                         enum memblock_flags flags)
> > {
> >        if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!align))
> >                 align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
> > 
> > Looks like patch
> > 
> >   "memblock: stop using implicit alignment to SMP_CACHE_BYTES"
> > 
> > missed some places ...
> 
> To be expected, I guess.  I'm pretty relaxed about this ;) Let's do
> another sweep in a week or so, after which we'll have a couple of
> months to mop up any leftovers.

After some more grepping and spatching I've found these:

>From 8b014bae53a78ab747dbb76b9aff7df4cefcb604 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 16:03:00 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] memblock: fix missed uses of implicit aligment

A couple of memblock*alloc uses were missed during conversion from implicit
alignment setting with 'align = 0' to explictly using SMP_CACHE_BYTES.
Fix them now.

Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c    | 2 +-
 drivers/firmware/efi/memmap.c | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c
index f331a00..913bfca 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/paca.c
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ void __init allocate_paca_ptrs(void)
 	paca_nr_cpu_ids = nr_cpu_ids;
 
 	paca_ptrs_size = sizeof(struct paca_struct *) * nr_cpu_ids;
-	paca_ptrs = __va(memblock_phys_alloc(paca_ptrs_size, 0));
+	paca_ptrs = __va(memblock_phys_alloc(paca_ptrs_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES));
 	memset(paca_ptrs, 0x88, paca_ptrs_size);
 }
 
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/memmap.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/memmap.c
index ef618bc..fa2904f 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/memmap.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/memmap.c
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
 
 static phys_addr_t __init __efi_memmap_alloc_early(unsigned long size)
 {
-	return memblock_phys_alloc(size, 0);
+	return memblock_phys_alloc(size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES);
 }
 
 static phys_addr_t __init __efi_memmap_alloc_late(unsigned long size)
-- 
2.7.4

 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.