[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <X8yoWHNzfl7vHVRA@kroah.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 10:46:00 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: dann frazier <dann.frazier@...onical.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 17/70] crypto: arm64/sha - avoid non-standard inline
asm tricks
On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 01:39:28PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 01:49:07PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:50:32AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > fyi, I bisected a regression down to this commit. This apparently
> > causes an ADR_PREL_PG_HI21 relocation to be added to the sha{1,2}_ce
> > modules. Back in 4.4 ADR_PREL_PG_HI21 relocations were forbidden if
> > built with CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_843419=y, so now the sha{1,2}_ce modules
> > fail to load:
> >
> > [ 37.866250] module sha1_ce: unsupported RELA relocation: 275
> >
> > Looks like it should be an issue for 4.14.y as well, but I haven't yet
> > tested it.
>
> This regression appears to be limited to 4.4.y. I didn't find it when
> testing 4.9.y, and a 2nd bisection determined that it is because
> 4.9.y+ also contains a backport of commit 41c066f ("arm64: assembler:
> make adr_l work in modules under KASLR"). That was pulled from 4.4.y
> because it caused a build failure:
>
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg179709.html
>
> Shall I submit a revert of this patch for 4.4.y, or is it worth trying
> to get a backport of 41c066f to work?
Which ever you think would be best is fine.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists