On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 at 15:40, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>
> I tested the patch with the 0-day bot reproducer and it does fix the
> warning. My usual arm64 and riscv configs also seem to build and boot
> just fine.
Thanks. I've been running it on my machine too, and still don't see
anything wrong with
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:15 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 12:17, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > That said, I still think that just getting rid of this horrid special
> > case for posix timers is the right thing, and we should just remove
> > that SYS_NI() alias thing
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 12:17, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> That said, I still think that just getting rid of this horrid special
> case for posix timers is the right thing, and we should just remove
> that SYS_NI() alias thing entirely.
IOW, something like the attached patch.
It's not extensively
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 11:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> -asmlinkage long sys_ni_posix_timers(void);
> +asmlinkage long sys_ni_posix_timers(const struct pt_regs *regs);
I don't think it should be asmlinkage. That means "use legacy asm
calling conventions", and for x86-32 that means pass on stack.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 10:21 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 01:58, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > Looking at the dmesg, I think you missed the most important part - the
> > preceding line:
> >
> > [ 13.480504][ T48] CFI failure at int80_emulation+0x67/0xb0 (target:
> >
On 19/12/2023 6:20 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 01:58, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> Looking at the dmesg, I think you missed the most important part - the
>> preceding line:
>>
>> [ 13.480504][ T48] CFI failure at int80_emulation+0x67/0xb0 (target:
>>
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 01:58, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> Looking at the dmesg, I think you missed the most important part - the
> preceding line:
>
> [ 13.480504][ T48] CFI failure at int80_emulation+0x67/0xb0 (target:
> sys_ni_posix_timers+0x0/0x70; expected type: 0xb02b34d9)
>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 04:49:14PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> [ 13.481107][ T48] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 48 at int80_emulation
> (arch/x86/entry/common.c:164)
> [ 13.481454][ T48] Modules linked in:
> [ 13.481655][ T48] CPU: 0 PID: 48 Comm: init Tainted: G N
>
hi, Thomas Gleixner,
as we understand, this commit be5341eb0d doesn't introduce new WARNING, it just
converts the WARING in another type.
b82a8dbd3d2f4563 be5341eb0d43b1e754799498bd2
---
fail:runs %reproductionfail:runs
|
