From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 15:38:04 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: spin-table: handle unmapped cpu-release-addrs In-Reply-To: <1408113355.599.146.camel@deneb.redhat.com> References: <20140813125844.GE32644@leverpostej> <20140814171323.GH9039@arm.com> <20140815115714.GP27466@arm.com> <20140815125324.GQ27466@arm.com> <1408113355.599.146.camel@deneb.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20140815143804.GW27466@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 03:35:55PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote: > On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 15:28 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 15 August 2014 14:53, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 01:07:16PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > >> On 15 August 2014 13:57, Will Deacon wrote: > > >> > I was planning to take all of these for 3.18 as there's no regression here > > >> > (the fuzzing is a new debug feature and defaults to `n'). Do you think these > > >> > qualify as -rc1 material? > > >> > > > >> > > >> Considering that TEXT_OFFSET fuzzing is recommended to be turned on > > >> for distro kernels, I would say this is definitely appropriate for > > >> 3.17 > > > > > > Whilst I see that in the commit log, the same recommendation doesn't appear > > > in the Kconfig text and I'm not sure that it's such a wise thing to say > > > either. From a distribution's point of view, I think I'd want any kernel > > > issues to be as reproducible as possible, and fuzzing the text offset seems > > > to go against that. > > > > > > > OK. There is one other real world issue that 3/3 addresses, which are > > platforms that have memreserves at the base of DRAM containing bits of > > UEFI itself (this is what got this whole discussion going in the first > > place). Currently, we cannot boot via UEFI on these platforms, as the > > EFI stub will only consider base of DRAM + TEXT_OFFSET as an option, > > and fail the boot if it is not available. > > > > If this is something that could wait until 3.18 as well (Mark S?), > > then it's fine by me. > > > > I don't see a problem with waiting until 3.18. Cheers, I've applied the series to our for-next branch and I'll push everything out at -rc1. Will