linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] x86: Fix kexec 5-level to 4-level paging transition

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: <20251103185504.GLaQj6iHx4pu9RCL7E@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 19:55:04 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
Cc: dwmw@...zon.co.uk, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, ardb@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
	x86@...nel.org, apopple@...dia.com, thuth@...hat.com,
	nik.borisov@...e.com, kas@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
	Michael van der Westhuizen <rmikey@...a.com>,
	Tobias Fleig <tfleig@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] x86: Fix kexec 5-level to 4-level paging
 transition

On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 09:36:41PM +0300, Usama Arif wrote:
> Yes, I did the below build tests:

Thanks!

> make LLVM=1 allnoconfig; make LLVM=1 bzImage
> make LLVM=1 defconfig; make LLVM=1 bzImage
> make LLVM=1 allmodconfig; make LLVM=1 bzImage
> make LLVM=1 allyesconfig; make LLVM=1 bzImage
> 
> make LLVM=1 ARCH=i386 allnoconfig; make LLVM=1 ARCH=i386 bzImage
> make LLVM=1 ARCH=i386 defconfig; make LLVM=1 ARCH=i386 bzImage
> make LLVM=1 ARCH=i386 allmodconfig; make LLVM=1 ARCH=i386 bzImage
> make LLVM=1 ARCH=i386 allyesconfig; make LLVM=1 ARCH=i386 bzImage

Next time try gcc too pls. :-) That's the first compiler we ever supported.

> The i386 ones had a failure in lib/math/test_mul_u64_u64_div_u64.c:156:9 for
> linux-next/master so I rebased my patches on v6.17 and tested and they all
> built successfully.

Yeah, that was pointless. 

You can simply say that the 32-bit build fails because of an unrelated reason.

But backporting it to another kernel doesn't have any bearing on the code this
is going to be applied ontop of so...

But not a problem, I'll do the rest of the testing here.

Thanks again.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette