lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 4.9 00/92] 4.9.81-stable review
    On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 09:35:59AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
    > On 02/17/2018 05:45 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
    > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 02:31:53PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
    > > > On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 16:29 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
    > > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S: Assembler messages:
    > > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S:260: Error: unrecognized opcode: `rfi_to_user'
    > > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S:270: Error: unrecognized opcode: `rfi_to_kernel'
    > > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S:885: Error: unrecognized opcode: `rfi_to_user'
    > > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S:900: Error: unrecognized opcode: `rfi_to_kernel'
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Looks like 222f20f140623 ("powerpc/64s: Simple RFI macro conversions") is missing,
    > > > > > or at least part of it. Unfortunately it doesn't apply cleanly.
    > > > >
    > > > > Ugh. Let's see if the ppc developers care about this or not :)
    > > >
    > > > Hi,
    > > >
    > > > in Debian we extracted the following hunk from 222f20f140623 to fix build on
    > > > powerpc/ppc64el. Only compile tested against Debian builds though.
    > > >
    > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
    > > > index 3320bcac7192..e68faa4d1b13 100644
    > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
    > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S
    > > > @@ -37,6 +37,11 @@
    > > > #include <asm/tm.h>
    > > > #include <asm/ppc-opcode.h>
    > > > #include <asm/export.h>
    > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S
    > > > +#include <asm/exception-64s.h>
    > > > +#else
    > > > +#include <asm/exception-64e.h>
    > > > +#endif
    > >
    > > Ah, thanks! I've now queued up this portion of the patch.
    > >
    >
    > Hmm, that chunk really doesn't do what the original patch is supposed to do,
    > meaning it won't provide the vulnerability protection it is supposed to provide
    > (AFAICS that is Meltdown). Just a note in case anyone is concerned about
    > actually providing that protection.

    Good point, I've renamed this patch now to make it more obvious what is
    going on.

    thanks,

    greg k-h

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-02-20 11:40    [W:2.393 / U:0.628 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site