linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0000/2297] [ANNOUNCE, RFC] "Fast Kernel Headers" Tree -v1: Eliminate the Linux kernel's "Dependency Hell"

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, 5 Jan 2022 01:40:32 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0000/2297] [ANNOUNCE, RFC] "Fast Kernel Headers" Tree
 -v1: Eliminate the Linux kernel's "Dependency Hell"


* Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:

> > I.e. I think the bug was simply to make main.c aware of the array, now 
> > that the INIT_THREAD initialization is done there.
> 
> Yes, that seems right.
> 
> Unfortunately, while the kernel now builds, it does not boot in QEMU. I 
> tried to checkout at 9006a48618cc0cacd3f59ff053e6509a9af5cc18 to see if I 
> could reproduce that breakage there but the build errors out at that 
> change (I do see notes of bisection breakage in some of the commits) so I 
> assume that is expected.

Yeah, there's a breakage window on ARM64, I'll track down that 
bisectability bug.

Decoupling thread_info and task_struct incrementally, so that it bisects 
cleanly on all architectures, was always a big challenge. :-/

> There is no output, even with earlycon, so it seems like something is 
> going wrong in early boot code. I am not very familiar with the SCS code 
> so I will see if I can debug this with gdb later (I'll try to see if it 
> is reproducible with GCC as well; as Nick mentions, there is support 
> being added to it and I don't mind building from source).

Just to make sure: with SCS disabled the same kernel boots fine?

> Sure thing, I will continue to follow this and test it as much as I can 
> to make sure everything continues to work well!

Thank you!

	Ingo