On 4 December 2016 at 14:17, Matt Fleming <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov, at 10:47:15PM, tip-bot for Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> Commit-ID: 018edcfac4c3b140366ad51b0907f3becb5bb624 >> Gitweb: >> http://git.kernel.org/tip/018edcfac4c3b140366ad51b0907f3becb5bb624 >> Author: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> >> AuthorDate: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 18:02:23 +0000 >> Committer: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> >> CommitDate: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 07:15:23 +0100 >> >> efi/libstub: Make efi_random_alloc() allocate below 4 GB on 32-bit >> >> The UEFI stub executes in the context of the firmware, which identity >> maps the available system RAM, which implies that only memory below >> 4 GB can be used for allocations on 32-bit architectures, even on [L]PAE >> capable hardware. >> >> So ignore any reported memory above 4 GB in efi_random_alloc(). This >> also fixes a reported build problem on ARM under -Os, where the 64-bit >> logical shift relies on a software routine that the ARM decompressor does >> not provide. >> >> A second [minor] issue is also fixed, where the '+ 1' is moved out of >> the shift, where it belongs: the reason for its presence is that a >> memory region where start == end should count as a single slot, given >> that 'end' takes the desired size and alignment of the allocation into >> account. >> >> To clarify the code in this regard, rename start/end to 'first_slot' and >> 'last_slot', respectively, and introduce 'region_end' to describe the >> last usable address of the current region. >> >> Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> >> Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> >> Cc: Matt Fleming <[email protected]> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Link: >> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] >> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/random.c | 13 +++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > Ard, was this picked up for the correct tip branch? If it fixes a > build failure it should have gone into tip/efi/urgent, right?
The failure was in -next, with a patch queued up for v4.10, so that is where the fix went as well.
