linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: composite: Also consider .determine_rate for rate + mux composites

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Date:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 23:41:15 +0100
From:   Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
        Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>
Cc:     sboyd@...nel.org, heiko@...ech.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
        "kernelci@...ups.io" <kernelci@...ups.io>,
        Collabora Kernel ML <kernel@...labora.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: composite: Also consider .determine_rate for rate +
 mux composites

Hi Guillaume,

Am 01.11.21 um 23:11 schrieb Robin Murphy:
> On 2021-11-01 21:59, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2021-11-01 20:58, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>>> Hi Guillaume,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:19 PM Guillaume Tucker
>>> <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>
>>>> Please see the bisection report below about a boot failure on
>>>> rk3328-rock64.
>>>>
>>>> Reports aren't automatically sent to the public while we're
>>>> trialing new bisection features on kernelci.org but this one
>>>> looks valid.
>>>>
>>>> Some more details can be found here:
>>>>
>>>>    https://linux.kernelci.org/test/case/id/617f11f5c157b666fb3358e6/
>>>>
>>>> Here's what appears to be the cause of the problem:
>>>>
>>>> [    0.033465] CPU: CPUs started in inconsistent modes
>>>> [    0.033557] Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1
>>>> [    0.034432] Internal error: BRK handler: f2000800 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
>>
>> What's weird is that that's really just the same WARN that's also
>> present in 'successful' logs, except for some reason it's behaving as
>> if the break handler hasn't been registered, despite that having
>> happened long before we got to smp_init(). At this point we're also
>> still some way off getting as far as initcalls, so I'm not sure that
>> the clock driver would be in the picture at all yet.
>>
>> Is the bisection repeatable, or is this just random flakiness
>> misleading things? I'd also note that you need pretty horrifically
>> broken firmware to hit that warning in the first place, which might
>> cast a bit of doubt over the trustworthiness of that board altogether.
> 
> Ah, on closer inspection it might be entirely repeatable for a given
> kernel build, but with the behaviour being very sensitive to code/data
> segment layout changes...
> 
> ...
> 23:44:24.457917  Filename '1007060/tftp-deploy-dvdnydcw/kernel/Image'.
> 23:44:24.460178  Load address: 0x2000000
> ...
> 23:44:27.180962  Bytes transferred = 33681920 (201f200 hex)
> ...
> 23:44:27.288135  Filename
> '1007060/tftp-deploy-dvdnydcw/ramdisk/ramdisk.cpio.gz.uboot'.
> 23:44:27.288465  Load address: 0x4000000
> ...
could you try updating u-boot to more recent version: the ramdisk
address has been moved [1] to 0x06000000 in v2020.01-rc5.

I couldn't reproduce this issue with the very same board.

[1]
https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/commit/b2e373d16b0345d3c3f4beefdf0889e83faf173d

Alex

> 
> Yeah, that'll be a problem ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> Robin.
> 
>>>> There doesn't appear to be any other platform in KernelCI showing
>>>> the same issue.
>>> That's a strange error for the changes from my patch.
>>> At first glance I don't see any relation to clk-composite code:
>>> - the call trace doesn't have any references to CCF or rockchip clock
>>> drivers
>>> - clk-rk3328.c uses drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-cpu.c to register the CPU
>>> clock which does not use clk-composite
>>>
>>> Chen-Yu has tested this patch (plus [0]) on RK3399 and didn't observe
>>> any problems.
>>> So maybe this is a RK3328 specific issue?
>>> Anyways, I am interested in fixing this issue because reverting is
>>> becoming more and more complex (since I think we're at eight commits
>>> which would need to be reverted in total).
>>>
>>>> Please let us know if you need help debugging the issue or if you
>>>> have a fix to try.
>>> Could you please try [0] which is the second patch in the series which
>>> finally made it upstream.
>>> This second patch is not in 5.15 because I believed that it's only
>>> something to make the code in clk-composite.c more future-proof. It's
>>> not a condition that I am aware of.
>>>
>>> I don't have any Rockchip boards myself.
>>> So I am thankful for any help I can get.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> [0]
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/clk/linux.git/commit/?h=clk-next&id=6594988fd625ff0d9a8f90f1788e16185358a3e6
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Linux-rockchip mailing list
>>> Linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-rockchip mailing list
>> Linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip

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