linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: Fix 32-bit RISC-V boot failure

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:   Wed, 30 Jun 2021 19:58:39 +0800
From:   Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...il.com>
To:     Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: Fix 32-bit RISC-V boot failure

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:21 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:28 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2021/6/28 9:15, Bin Meng wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:53 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com> wrote:
> > >> Hi， sorry for the mistake，the bug is fixed by
> > >>
> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20210602085517.127481-2-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com/
> > > What are we on the patch you mentioned?
> > >
> > > I don't see it applied in the linux/master.
> > >
> > > Also there should be a "Fixes" tag and stable@...r.kernel.org cc'ed
> > > because 32-bit is broken since v5.12.
> >
> > https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux/+/c9811e379b211c67ba29fb09d6f644dd44cfcff2
> >
> > it's on Palmer' riscv-next.
>
> Not sure riscv-next is for which release? This is a regression and
> should be on 5.13.
>
> >
> > Hi Palmer, should I resend or could you help me to add the fixes tag?

Your patch mixed 2 things (fix plus one feature) together, so it is
not proper to back port your patch.

Here is my 2 cents:

1. Drop your patch from riscv-next
2. Apply my patch as it is a simple fix to previous commit. This
allows stable kernel to cherry-pick the fix to v5.12 and v5.13.
3. Rebase your patch against mine, and resend v2

Let me know if this makes sense.

Regards,
Bin