From: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] ❌ FAIL: Test report for kernel 5.4.0-rc2-d6c2c23.cki (stable-next)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:38:18 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2041772384.6478556.1571236698606.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191016042933.bemrrurjbghuiw73@willie-the-truck>
----- Original Message -----
>
> From 517d979e84191ae9997c9513a88a5b798af6912f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:04:18 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: tags: Preserve tags for addresses translated via
> TTBR1
>
> Sign-extending TTBR1 addresses when converting to an untagged address
> breaks the documented POSIX semantics for mlock() in some obscure error
> cases where we end up returning -EINVAL instead of -ENOMEM as a direct
> result of rewriting the upper address bits.
>
> Rework the untagged_addr() macro to preserve the upper address bits for
> TTBR1 addresses and only clear the tag bits for user addresses. This
> matches the behaviour of the 'clear_address_tag' assembly macro, so
> rename that and align the implementations at the same time so that they
> use the same instruction sequences for the tag manipulation.
>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20191014162651.GF19200@arrakis.emea.arm.com/
> Reported-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
No regressions observed with LTP syscalls/sched/mm/commands and open_posix_testsuite.
Tested-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
CKI Project <cki-project@redhat.com>,
LTP List <ltp@lists.linux.it>,
Linux Stable maillist <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
Memory Management <mm-qe@redhat.com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Subject: Re: ❌ FAIL: Test report for kernel 5.4.0-rc2-d6c2c23.cki (stable-next)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:38:18 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2041772384.6478556.1571236698606.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191016042933.bemrrurjbghuiw73@willie-the-truck>
----- Original Message -----
>
> From 517d979e84191ae9997c9513a88a5b798af6912f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:04:18 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: tags: Preserve tags for addresses translated via
> TTBR1
>
> Sign-extending TTBR1 addresses when converting to an untagged address
> breaks the documented POSIX semantics for mlock() in some obscure error
> cases where we end up returning -EINVAL instead of -ENOMEM as a direct
> result of rewriting the upper address bits.
>
> Rework the untagged_addr() macro to preserve the upper address bits for
> TTBR1 addresses and only clear the tag bits for user addresses. This
> matches the behaviour of the 'clear_address_tag' assembly macro, so
> rename that and align the implementations at the same time so that they
> use the same instruction sequences for the tag manipulation.
>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20191014162651.GF19200@arrakis.emea.arm.com/
> Reported-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
No regressions observed with LTP syscalls/sched/mm/commands and open_posix_testsuite.
Tested-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-16 14:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-14 2:19 ❌ FAIL: Test report for kernel 5.4.0-rc2-d6c2c23.cki (stable-next) CKI Project
2019-10-14 7:28 ` [LTP] " Jan Stancek
2019-10-14 7:28 ` Jan Stancek
2019-10-14 12:54 ` [LTP] " Andrey Konovalov
2019-10-14 12:54 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-10-14 16:26 ` [LTP] " Catalin Marinas
2019-10-14 16:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-10-14 21:33 ` [LTP] " Will Deacon
2019-10-14 21:33 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-15 15:26 ` [LTP] " Catalin Marinas
2019-10-15 15:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-10-15 16:02 ` [LTP] " Vincenzo Frascino
2019-10-15 16:02 ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-10-15 16:14 ` [LTP] " Will Deacon
2019-10-15 16:14 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-16 4:29 ` [LTP] " Will Deacon
2019-10-16 4:29 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-16 8:12 ` [LTP] " Catalin Marinas
2019-10-16 8:12 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-10-16 8:18 ` [LTP] " Vincenzo Frascino
2019-10-16 8:18 ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-10-16 13:55 ` [LTP] " Andrey Konovalov
2019-10-16 13:55 ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-10-16 14:38 ` Jan Stancek [this message]
2019-10-16 14:38 ` Jan Stancek
2019-10-16 14:44 ` [LTP] ? " Dave Martin
2019-10-16 14:44 ` Dave Martin
2019-10-16 14:52 ` [LTP] " Catalin Marinas
2019-10-16 14:52 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-10-16 16:35 ` [LTP] " Dave Martin
2019-10-16 16:35 ` Dave Martin
2019-10-16 18:10 ` [LTP] " Szabolcs Nagy
2019-10-16 18:10 ` Szabolcs Nagy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2041772384.6478556.1571236698606.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com \
--to=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.