linux-kernel - Re: next-20240219: arm64: boot failed

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: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:27:52 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
	open list
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Linux
 Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
	Catalin Marinas
	<catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Dan Carpenter
	<dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: next-20240219: arm64: boot failed - gic_of_init

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:46:46 +0000,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2024/2/19 19:32, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I've just tested both defconfig and my own
> > configuration with both 4k (kvmtool, QEMU+KVM and on SynQuacer) and
> > 16k (kvmtool), without any obvious problem.
> 
> I had a quick test on top of next-20240219 with defconfig.  I can
> reproduce it with QEMU parameter '-cpu max -accel tcg', but things are
> fine with '-cpu max,lpa2=off -accel tcg'.
> 
> Bisection shows that the problem happens when we start putting the
> latest arm64 and kvmarm changes together.  The following hack fixes the
> problem for me (but I **only** write it for kernel built with defconfig
> with ARM64_4K_PAGES=y atm).
> 
> I can investigate it further tomorrow (as it's too late now ;-) ).  Or
> maybe Marc or Catalin can help fix it with a proper approach.
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 4f7662008ede..babdc3f4721b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -2798,6 +2798,7 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities
> arm64_features[] = {
> | 		.sign = FTR_SIGNED,
> | 		.field_pos = ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_SHIFT,
> | 		.min_field_value = ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_52_BIT,
> |+		.max_field_value = BIT(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN4_WIDTH - 1) - 1,
> | #else
> | 		.sign = FTR_UNSIGNED,
> | 		.field_pos = ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1_TGRAN16_SHIFT,

I've posted my take on this at [1], which hopefully matches what you
were aiming at.

Thanks,

	M.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/86bk8c4gyh.wl-maz@kernel.org/


-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.