Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 04/04/17 at 02:37pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 20 Mar, at 10:14:12AM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > Matt, I'm fine if you prefer to capture the range checking errors. > > Would you like me to post it or just you send it out? > > Can you please send out the patch with the minimal change to >

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 04/04/17 at 02:37pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 20 Mar, at 10:14:12AM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > Matt, I'm fine if you prefer to capture the range checking errors. > > Would you like me to post it or just you send it out? > > Can you please send out the patch with the minimal change to >

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Mon, 20 Mar, at 10:14:12AM, Dave Young wrote: > > Matt, I'm fine if you prefer to capture the range checking errors. > Would you like me to post it or just you send it out? Can you please send out the patch with the minimal change to efi_arch_mem_reserve() and we'll get it into urgent ASAP.

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Mon, 20 Mar, at 10:14:12AM, Dave Young wrote: > > Matt, I'm fine if you prefer to capture the range checking errors. > Would you like me to post it or just you send it out? Can you please send out the patch with the minimal change to efi_arch_mem_reserve() and we'll get it into urgent ASAP.

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:50:48AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:41:32PM +, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Mar, at 03:37:48PM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > > > Omar, could you try below patch? Looking at the efi_mem_desc_lookup, it > > > is not > > > correct to be

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:50:48AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:41:32PM +, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Mar, at 03:37:48PM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > > > Omar, could you try below patch? Looking at the efi_mem_desc_lookup, it > > > is not > > > correct to be

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/22/17 at 04:10pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 21 March 2017 at 07:48, Dave Young wrote: > > On 03/20/17 at 10:14am, Dave Young wrote: > >> On 03/17/17 at 01:32pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > >> > On Fri, 17 Mar, at 10:09:51AM, Dave Young wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Matt, I think it

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/22/17 at 04:10pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 21 March 2017 at 07:48, Dave Young wrote: > > On 03/20/17 at 10:14am, Dave Young wrote: > >> On 03/17/17 at 01:32pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > >> > On Fri, 17 Mar, at 10:09:51AM, Dave Young wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Matt, I think it should be fine

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 21 March 2017 at 07:48, Dave Young wrote: > On 03/20/17 at 10:14am, Dave Young wrote: >> On 03/17/17 at 01:32pm, Matt Fleming wrote: >> > On Fri, 17 Mar, at 10:09:51AM, Dave Young wrote: >> > > >> > > Matt, I think it should be fine although I think the md type checking in

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 21 March 2017 at 07:48, Dave Young wrote: > On 03/20/17 at 10:14am, Dave Young wrote: >> On 03/17/17 at 01:32pm, Matt Fleming wrote: >> > On Fri, 17 Mar, at 10:09:51AM, Dave Young wrote: >> > > >> > > Matt, I think it should be fine although I think the md type checking in >> > >

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/20/17 at 10:14am, Dave Young wrote: > On 03/17/17 at 01:32pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Mar, at 10:09:51AM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > > > Matt, I think it should be fine although I think the md type checking in > > > efi_mem_desc_lookup() is causing confusion and not easy to

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/20/17 at 10:14am, Dave Young wrote: > On 03/17/17 at 01:32pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Mar, at 10:09:51AM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > > > Matt, I think it should be fine although I think the md type checking in > > > efi_mem_desc_lookup() is causing confusion and not easy to

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/17/17 at 01:32pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Fri, 17 Mar, at 10:09:51AM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > Matt, I think it should be fine although I think the md type checking in > > efi_mem_desc_lookup() is causing confusion and not easy to understand.. > > Could you make that a separate patch if

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/17/17 at 01:32pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Fri, 17 Mar, at 10:09:51AM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > Matt, I think it should be fine although I think the md type checking in > > efi_mem_desc_lookup() is causing confusion and not easy to understand.. > > Could you make that a separate patch if

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Fri, 17 Mar, at 10:09:51AM, Dave Young wrote: > > Matt, I think it should be fine although I think the md type checking in > efi_mem_desc_lookup() is causing confusion and not easy to understand.. Could you make that a separate patch if you think of improvements there? > How about move the

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Fri, 17 Mar, at 10:09:51AM, Dave Young wrote: > > Matt, I think it should be fine although I think the md type checking in > efi_mem_desc_lookup() is causing confusion and not easy to understand.. Could you make that a separate patch if you think of improvements there? > How about move the

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 17 March 2017 at 02:09, Dave Young wrote: > On 03/16/17 at 12:41pm, Matt Fleming wrote: >> On Mon, 13 Mar, at 03:37:48PM, Dave Young wrote: >> > >> > Omar, could you try below patch? Looking at the efi_mem_desc_lookup, it is >> > not >> > correct to be used in

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 17 March 2017 at 02:09, Dave Young wrote: > On 03/16/17 at 12:41pm, Matt Fleming wrote: >> On Mon, 13 Mar, at 03:37:48PM, Dave Young wrote: >> > >> > Omar, could you try below patch? Looking at the efi_mem_desc_lookup, it is >> > not >> > correct to be used in efi_arch_mem_reserve, if it

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/16/17 at 12:41pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar, at 03:37:48PM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > Omar, could you try below patch? Looking at the efi_mem_desc_lookup, it is > > not > > correct to be used in efi_arch_mem_reserve, if it passed your test, I > > can rewrite patch log with more

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/16/17 at 12:41pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar, at 03:37:48PM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > Omar, could you try below patch? Looking at the efi_mem_desc_lookup, it is > > not > > correct to be used in efi_arch_mem_reserve, if it passed your test, I > > can rewrite patch log with more

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:41:32PM +, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar, at 03:37:48PM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > Omar, could you try below patch? Looking at the efi_mem_desc_lookup, it is > > not > > correct to be used in efi_arch_mem_reserve, if it passed your test, I > > can rewrite

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:41:32PM +, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar, at 03:37:48PM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > Omar, could you try below patch? Looking at the efi_mem_desc_lookup, it is > > not > > correct to be used in efi_arch_mem_reserve, if it passed your test, I > > can rewrite

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Mon, 13 Mar, at 03:37:48PM, Dave Young wrote: > > Omar, could you try below patch? Looking at the efi_mem_desc_lookup, it is not > correct to be used in efi_arch_mem_reserve, if it passed your test, I > can rewrite patch log with more background and send it out: > >

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Mon, 13 Mar, at 03:37:48PM, Dave Young wrote: > > Omar, could you try below patch? Looking at the efi_mem_desc_lookup, it is not > correct to be used in efi_arch_mem_reserve, if it passed your test, I > can rewrite patch log with more background and send it out: > >

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Thu, 09 Mar, at 12:53:36PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Hi Omar, > > Thanks for tracking this down. > > I wonder if this is an unintended side effect of the way we repurpose > the EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME attribute in efi_arch_mem_reserve(). AFAIUI, > splitting memory map entries should only be

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Thu, 09 Mar, at 12:53:36PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Hi Omar, > > Thanks for tracking this down. > > I wonder if this is an unintended side effect of the way we repurpose > the EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME attribute in efi_arch_mem_reserve(). AFAIUI, > splitting memory map entries should only be

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/09/17 at 01:54am, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:38:06PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > Add efi/kexec list. > > > > On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > [snip] > > > I have no more clue yet from your provided log, but the runtime value is > > odd to me. It is

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/09/17 at 01:54am, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:38:06PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > Add efi/kexec list. > > > > On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > [snip] > > > I have no more clue yet from your provided log, but the runtime value is > > odd to me. It is

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/09/17 at 01:54am, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:38:06PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > Add efi/kexec list. > > > > On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > [snip] > > > I have no more clue yet from your provided log, but the runtime value is > > odd to me. It is

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/09/17 at 01:54am, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:38:06PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > Add efi/kexec list. > > > > On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > [snip] > > > I have no more clue yet from your provided log, but the runtime value is > > odd to me. It is

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/09/17 at 12:53pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 9 March 2017 at 10:54, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:38:06PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > >> Add efi/kexec list. > >> > >> On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> I have no

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/09/17 at 12:53pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 9 March 2017 at 10:54, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:38:06PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > >> Add efi/kexec list. > >> > >> On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> I have no more clue yet from your

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 9 March 2017 at 10:54, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:38:06PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> Add efi/kexec list. >> >> On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > [snip] > >> I have no more clue yet from your provided log, but the runtime value is >>

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 9 March 2017 at 10:54, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:38:06PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> Add efi/kexec list. >> >> On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > [snip] > >> I have no more clue yet from your provided log, but the runtime value is >> odd to me. It is set

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:38:06PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > Add efi/kexec list. > > On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: [snip] > I have no more clue yet from your provided log, but the runtime value is > odd to me. It is set in below code: > > arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c:

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:38:06PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > Add efi/kexec list. > > On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: [snip] > I have no more clue yet from your provided log, but the runtime value is > odd to me. It is set in below code: > > arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c:

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 10:21:36AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > I have no esrt machine to test, can you share the full kernel log with > efi=debug in kernel cmdline? > > *) normal boot kernel log without the reverting > *) kexec boot log with and without the reverting Attached. [0.00]

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 10:21:36AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > I have no esrt machine to test, can you share the full kernel log with > efi=debug in kernel cmdline? > > *) normal boot kernel log without the reverting > *) kexec boot log with and without the reverting Attached. [0.00]

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

Add efi/kexec list. On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: > Hi, everyone, > > Since 4.9, kexec results in the following panic on some of our servers: > > [0.001000] general protection fault: [#1] SMP > [0.001000] Modules linked in: > [0.001000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm:

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

Add efi/kexec list. On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: > Hi, everyone, > > Since 4.9, kexec results in the following panic on some of our servers: > > [0.001000] general protection fault: [#1] SMP > [0.001000] Modules linked in: > [0.001000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm:

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: > Hi, everyone, > > Since 4.9, kexec results in the following panic on some of our servers: > > [0.001000] general protection fault: [#1] SMP > [0.001000] Modules linked in: > [0.001000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted

Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

On 03/08/17 at 12:16pm, Omar Sandoval wrote: > Hi, everyone, > > Since 4.9, kexec results in the following panic on some of our servers: > > [0.001000] general protection fault: [#1] SMP > [0.001000] Modules linked in: > [0.001000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted

kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

Hi, everyone, Since 4.9, kexec results in the following panic on some of our servers: [0.001000] general protection fault: [#1] SMP [0.001000] Modules linked in: [0.001000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.11.0-rc1 #53 [0.001000] Hardware name: Wiwynn

kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi

Hi, everyone, Since 4.9, kexec results in the following panic on some of our servers: [0.001000] general protection fault: [#1] SMP [0.001000] Modules linked in: [0.001000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.11.0-rc1 #53 [0.001000] Hardware name: Wiwynn