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

Message-ID: <CA+G9fYtWqf1h3w1nkjJGXjYis7Zx5pNxN=EvmfFpMxgktW70Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:00:50 +0530
From: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>, 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 at 20:57, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

This patch [1] applied on Linux next-20240219 and tested and the boot
test passed.
I have validated today's Linux next-20240220 and the boot test passed.

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

- Naresh