linux-kernel - Re: kvm: x86-32 fails to link with tdp

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201024030409.GD7824@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:04:09 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kvm: x86-32 fails to link with tdp_mmu

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 07:17:54PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 09:13:21PM -0500, Daniel Díaz wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > We found the following problem building torvalds/master, which
> > recently merged the for-linus tag from the KVM tree, when building
> > with gcc 7.3.0 and glibc 2.27 for x86 32-bits under OpenEmbedded:
> > 
> > |   LD      vmlinux.o
> > |   MODPOST vmlinux.symvers
> > |   MODINFO modules.builtin.modinfo
> > |   GEN     modules.builtin
> > |   LD      .tmp_vmlinux.kallsyms1
> > | arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.o: In function `__handle_changed_spte':
> > | tdp_mmu.c:(.text+0x78a): undefined reference to `__umoddi3'
> 
> The problem is a % on a 64-bit value.  Patches incoming, there's also a goof
> in similar code that was tweaked last minute to avoid the %.

Just the one patch actually, I misread some cleverness.  Patch still inbound...