From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 09:51:07 +0000 Subject: [linux-next PATCH] arm64: fix kernel crash with 48-bit VA and 64KB granule In-Reply-To: <20160106085929.GB7879@arm.org> References: <20160105084042.GF13942@arm.org> <20160105095603.GG6301@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20160106061407.GA7082@arm.org> <20160106073847.GA7608@arm.org> <20160106085216.GA7879@arm.org> <20160106085929.GB7879@arm.org> Message-ID: <20160106095107.GA16580@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Dennis, On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 04:59:30PM +0800, Dennis Chen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:54:42AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 6 January 2016 at 09:52, Dennis Chen wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 08:42:20AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > >> On 6 January 2016 at 08:38, Dennis Chen wrote: > > >> > Well, if the build system changes the link order, it can't make sure it will break something > > >> > unexpectedly, needless to say the pgd_cache_init here at all. > > >> > > >> That is no excuse to introduce yet another failure mode. > > >> > > >> > Do you think the kernel > > >> > will change its currently link order policy? If the answer is yes, what's the benefit? > > >> > > > >> > > >> It does not matter what I think. You seem to think that the link order > > >> is set in stone, so it is you who should argue why that is a > > >> reasonable assumption. > > >> > > > OK, If you think the link order is volatile, how can you guarantee the arm_enable_runtime_services with early_initcall > > > always work in a volatile link order environment? > > > > > > > By not relying on other early_initcalls > > > You're limiting the scope of the link order Please stop this mindless bickering. It's a waste of everybody's time and we have a kernel to test. Will