linux-kernel - Re: [v5.4 stable] arm: stm32: Regression observed on "no-map" reserved memory region

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: <YJvLSbGh0YPRo0S2@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 May 2021 12:34:17 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To:     Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Architecture Mailman List <boot-architecture@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [v5.4 stable] arm: stm32: Regression observed on "no-map"
 reserved memory region

On Wednesday 12 May 2021 at 12:55:53 (+0200), Alexandre TORGUE wrote:
> We saw that patches [1] and [2] cause issue on stable version (at least for
> 5.4). As you said issue can be seen with above device tree and check in
> /proc/iomem than gpu_reserved region is taken by the kernel as "System RAM".
> 
> On v5.10 stream there are no issues seen taking patches [1]&[2] and the
> reason is linked to patches [3]&[4] which have been introduced in v5.10.0.
> Reverting them give me the same behavior than on stable version.

Thanks for confirming. Given that the patches were not really fixes, I
think reverting is still the best option. I've sent reverts to -stable
for 5.4 and prior:

https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20210512122853.3243417-1-qperret@google.com/

Cheers,
Quentin