linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/perf: Fixed kernel panic during boot on Nano processor.

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:   Sun, 16 Oct 2022 12:56:04 +0200
From:   8vvbbqzo567a@...pam.xutrox.com
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
        namhyung@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
        hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, shyaololo@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/perf: Fixed kernel panic during boot on Nano
 processor.

On 16-10-2022 11:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 11:53:14AM +0200, Arjan wrote:
>> On 13-10-2022 17:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 09:31:09AM +0800, Cody Yao-oc wrote:
>>>> From: CodyYao-oc <CodyYao-oc@...oxin.com>
>>>>
>>>> Nano processor may not fully support rdpmc instruction, it works well
>>>> for reading general pmc counter, but will lead to GP(general protection)
>>>> when accessing fixed pmc counter. Futhermore, family/model information
>>>> is same between Nano processor and ZX-C processor, it leads to zhaoxin
>>>> pmu driver is wrongly loaded for Nano processor, which resulting boot
>>>> kernal fail.
>>>>
>>>> To solve this problem, stepping information will be checked to distinguish
>>>> between Nano processor and ZX-C processor.
>>>>
>>>> [https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212389]
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Arjan <8vvbbqzo567a@...pam.xutrox.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: CodyYao-oc <CodyYao-oc@...oxin.com>
>>>
>>> *sigh*.. so this email address doesn't exist, as such I can't apply this
>>> patch. Consider it dropped.
>>
>> If it's about my email address: The address exists and works.
>> If the nospam part bothers you, that part can be left out. You may leave the reported-by line out if you want to.
> 
> The SoB address (CodyYao-oc@...oxin.com) bounced for me -- since that's
> the patch author that is somewhat important.

It now bounced for me too.
It was still valid when Cody submitted the patch in 2021, because we
exchanged messages while debugging and testing the patch.