linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] of: unittest: overlay: ensure proper alignment of copied FDT

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]

Message-ID: <c625202a-0530-adbd-d4f8-0935d3ed37e2@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:53:10 -0500
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] of: unittest: overlay: ensure proper alignment of
 copied FDT

On 4/8/21 4:54 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 4/8/21 2:28 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>
>> Applying now so this gets into linux-next this week.
>>
> The patch doesn't apply on top of today's -next; it conflicts
> with "of: properly check for error returned by fdt_get_name()".
> 
> I reverted that patch and applied this one, and the DT unittests
> run with it on openrisc. I do get a single test failure, but I that
> is a different problem (possibly with the test case itself).
> 
> ### dt-test ### FAIL of_unittest_dma_ranges_one():923 of_dma_get_range: wrong DMA addr 0x00000000
> 	(expecting 100000000) on node /testcase-data/address-tests/bus@...00000/device@...0

That is a known regression on the target that I use for testing (and
has been since 5.10-rc1) - the 8074 dragonboard, arm 32.  No
one else has reported it on the list, so even though I want to debug
and fix it "promptly", other tasks have had higher priority.  In my
notes I list two suspect commits:

  e0d072782c73 dma-mapping: introduce DMA range map, supplanting dma_pfn_offset
  0a0f0d8be76d dma-mapping: split <linux/dma-mapping.h>

I think that was purely based on looking at the list of commits that
may have touched OF dma.  I have not done a bisect.

One specific report of not seeing the FAIL was Vireshk on 5.11-rc6 with
a Hikey board.

> 
> Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>

Thanks for testing!

> 
> Guenter
>