linux-kernel - Re: LTS kernel Linux 4.14.290 unable to boot with edk2-ovmf (x86

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: <YwMxRAfrrsPE6sNI@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:33:24 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>
Cc:     stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-x86_64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: LTS kernel Linux 4.14.290 unable to boot with edk2-ovmf (x86_64
 UEFI runtime)

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 03:24:53PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2022/8/22 14:25, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:15:59AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > When backporting some btrfs specific patches to all LTS kernels, I found
> > > v4.14.290 kernel unable to boot as a KVM guest with edk2-ovmf
> > > (edk2-ovmf: 202205, qemu 7.0.0, libvirt 1:8.6.0).
> > > 
> > > While all other LTS/stable branches (4.19.x, 5.4.x, 5.10.x, 5.15.x,
> > > 5.18.x, 5.19.x) can boot without a hipccup.
> > > 
> > > I tried the following configs, but none of them can even provide an
> > > early output:
> > > 
> > > - CONFIG_X86_VERBOSE_BOOTUP
> > > - CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK
> > > - CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK_EFI
> > > 
> > > Is this a known bug or something new?
> > 
> > Has this ever worked properly on this very old kernel tree?  If so, can
> > you use 'git bisect' to find the offending commit?
> 
> Unfortunately the initial v4.14 from upstream can not even be compiled.

Really?  Try using an older version of gcc and you should be fine.  It
did build properly back in 2017 when it was released :)

thanks,

greg k-h