linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/5] mips: bmips: BCM6358: make sure CBR is correctly set

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: <6668503a.050a0220.9ec4a.4777@mx.google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:04:36 +0200
From: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
Cc: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
	Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
	Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>,
	linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/5] mips: bmips: BCM6358: make sure CBR is correctly
 set

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 02:49:07PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 01:35:33PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > It was discovered that some device have CBR address set to 0 causing
> > kernel panic when arch_sync_dma_for_cpu_all is called.
> > 
> > This was notice in situation where the system is booted from TP1 and
> > BMIPS_GET_CBR() returns 0 instead of a valid address and
> > !!(read_c0_brcm_cmt_local() & (1 << 31)); not failing.
> > 
> > The current check whether RAC flush should be disabled or not are not
> > enough hence lets check if CBR is a valid address or not.
> > 
> > Fixes: ab327f8acdf8 ("mips: bmips: BCM6358: disable RAC flush for TP1")
> 
> should I apply it to mips-fixes ? If not could you just ammend
> it with the following patch, where this is changed again ?
>

Ideally this should be backported to stable kernel since it does cause
kernel panic. This is why it's split and it's the first patch of the
series.

-- 
	Ansuel