linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH V2 0/5] Fixups to work with crash tool

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 Jul 2022 17:47:49 +0800
From:   Xianting Tian <xianting.tian@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com
Cc:     alexandre.ghiti@...onical.com, heiko@...ech.de, palmer@...belt.com,
        mick@....forth.gr, guoren@...nel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        bhe@...hat.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, vgoyal@...hat.com,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, dyoung@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, crash-utility@...hat.com,
        huanyi.xj@...baba-inc.com, heinrich.schuchardt@...onical.com,
        anup@...infault.org, corbet@....net, k-hagio-ab@....com,
        hschauhan@...ltrace.org, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH V2 0/5] Fixups to work with crash tool


在 2022/7/26 下午5:42, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com 写道:
> On 26/07/2022 10:28, Xianting Tian wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> 在 2022/7/26 下午4:16, Xianting Tian 写道:
>>> 在 2022/7/26 下午4:01, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com 写道:
>>>> On 26/07/2022 08:54, tianxianting wrote:
>>>>> 在 2022/7/26 上午1:13, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com 写道:
>>>>>> That said, this does not apply to riscv/for-next:
>>>>>> b4 shazam 20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian@...ux.alibaba.com
>>>>>> Grabbing thread from
>>>>>> lore.kernel.org/all/20220725014539.1037627-1-xianting.tian%40linux.alibaba.com/t.mbox.gz
>>>>>> Checking for newer revisions on https://lore.kernel.org/all/
>>>>>> Analyzing 6 messages in the thread
>>>>>> Checking attestation on all messages, may take a moment...
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>      [PATCH v2 1/5] RISC-V: use __smp_processor_id() instead of
>>>>>> smp_processor_id()
>>>>>>      [PATCH v2 2/5] RISC-V: Add arch_crash_save_vmcoreinfo support
>>>>>>      [PATCH v2 3/5] riscv: Add modules to virtual kernel memory
>>>>>> layout dump
>>>>>>      [PATCH v2 4/5] RISC-V: Fixup getting correct current pc
>>>>>>      [PATCH v2 5/5] riscv: crash_core: Export kernel vm layout,
>>>>>> phys_ram_base
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Total patches: 5
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Applying: RISC-V: use __smp_processor_id() instead of
>>>>>> smp_processor_id()
>>>>>> Applying: RISC-V: Add arch_crash_save_vmcoreinfo support
>>>>>> Patch failed at 0002 RISC-V: Add arch_crash_save_vmcoreinfo support
>>>>> patch 2 apply is OK for me, I don't know why you failed :(
>>>>> Do you have more detals for this?
>>>>>
>>>> What did you apply it to? It does not apply for me to riscv/for-next:
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux.git/log/?h=for-next
>>>>
>>> This 5 patches are based on the master branch of below git:
>>>
>>> https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
>>>
>>>
>>> "git am 0002-RISC-V-Add-arch_crash_save_vmcoreinfo-support.patch" to
>>> this git is ok for me.
>>>
>>> All is correct?
>> I figured out the reason, there is one difference in
>> arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile between riscv/for-next and torvalds/linux.
>>
>> For riscv/for-next, in line 81 of arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile, it is:
>>
>>       obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC)        += kexec_relocate.o crash_save_regs.o
>> machine_kexec.o
>>
>> But for torvalds/linux, in line 81 of arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile, it is:
>>
>>       obj-$(CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE)        += kexec_relocate.o
>> crash_save_regs.o machine_kexec.o
>>
>> torvalds/linux is newer than riscv/for-next,  commit 3a66a08759
>> ("RISC-V: kexec: Fix build error without CONFIG_KEXEC") added
>> "CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE" for torvalds/linux, But riscv/for-next
>>
>> doesn't contain the commit.
> Ah right, since it's late in the cycle (mw is next week) maybe
> it's best to wait for rc1 then and rebase when for-next & fixes
> have been synced. Conflict doesn't seem to hard to sort out for
> those who use kexec ;)
Okay, thanks.
>
> Thanks,
> Conor.
>