linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/2] Dynamic Allocation of the reserved

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: <ZsPIATwAPpw7vnMU@surfacebook.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 01:33:43 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
	Oreoluwa Babatunde <quic_obabatun@...cinc.com>,
	saravanak@...gle.com, klarasmodin@...il.com, aisheng.dong@....com,
	hch@....de, m.szyprowski@...sung.com, robin.murphy@....com,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	iommu@...ts.linux.dev, will@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
	kernel@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/2] Dynamic Allocation of the reserved_mem array

Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 04:55:49PM -0500, Rob Herring kirjoitti:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:23 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy@...ck.fi.intel.com> wrote:

...

> > This series (in particular the first patch) broke boot on Intel Meteor
> > Lake-P. Taking Linux next of 20240819 with these being reverted makes
> > things work again.
> 
> Looks like this provides some detail:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202408192157.8d8fe8a9-oliver.sang@intel.com/
> 
> I've dropped the patches for now.

Thank you, that's what I have asked for!

> > Taking into account bisectability issue (that's how I noticed the issue
> > in the first place) I think it would be nice to have no such patches at
> > all in the respective subsystem tree. On my side I may help with testing
> > whatever solution or next version provides.
> 
> I don't follow what you are asking for? That the patches should be
> bisectable? Well, yes, of course, but I don't verify that typically.
> Patch 1 builds fine for m, so I'm not sure what issue you see.

There are two types of bisectability:
1) compile-time;
2) run-time.

People often forgot about #2 and that's exactly what I'm complaining about.
Due to bisecting another thing, I have stumbled over this issue.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko