From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,FSL_HELO_FAKE, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C806CC5CFE7 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:37:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1C520881 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:37:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="qVBmdlrh" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7E1C520881 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389229AbeGKPmf (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2018 11:42:35 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com ([209.85.221.65]:40647 "EHLO mail-wr1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732637AbeGKPme (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2018 11:42:34 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id t6-v6so18632811wrn.7; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:37:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=6KaHoyRfapWfv24HPjm98LVoPSFIMB1vsxt03M8b8Ck=; b=qVBmdlrho6fWsNgxRoU0wb9Xerog+HXJER6GP2X8axp5AbqLYWHC3RpBjqoPNTlfLp +uQwgDM7UETjcrVgEKbd21a/O/l7fl5AeouE/rcRC8L9FJVtiYaUBkYdEaaypf80tVUZ zH7ucFiLA+pRR0jmtVSaNvwlp+7bpwFtT651+WwLQvYTbWEAOL1K8mYgBD9WjYACKIEw B2wcZfaaY8KfkszdS8+AL4UmZk200b0wQJyszTCR2chE06QEAA5uCmJi+ZTIreLyEfta QhyMZzUioMAZX3Gkn3LkefgxMwnjm60Edlakj+wEqqNJ/3UzZBrRsTVv+vWWkx3pyp2X E/uQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=6KaHoyRfapWfv24HPjm98LVoPSFIMB1vsxt03M8b8Ck=; b=EhxOGRXJ2Bp1+43L3/n3HRYPT7Nt3bTtbRYWMzRGy7+X6fWdksap3/OsCYIYybI+p/ 2rxfufAgjDtsmRsrTyTgsCfaMPPBJpjapiJdKJMpYS3Q0jOoBAemuzj8Z8g2QTjHkWD4 AzFV6FjQsHkihigHoHgfK3TRBPcTh0f78U5X+ziRnYFpTiTYraF7qEynB+KBqqGr8kGw g1DrWbpVgqhcnWe+5go+0O1CW/gRvTpYI69NlAj2la98LqJ2TNHr9Wji0IYALjxYFNP4 HZMEf2LBsv3Bghn5kWNzknPMwgQiC4VoyUMfjL4QQzUA6HPrlDVGBuGViT50QqKAVleJ gFdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEH2iMdAP793TB6QLnpwF5tXr4R61Xpu58TAsMPuJoafZLh5q8l 8zIN3BVtpmhPpEvPyWNzzAEvaA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfDEbMiFD3tRxsf9bLsSfEaheZo9c9XJFTqFlaeCDheLCyM2/gAbnwImj8b2zuRo94m/sfcSg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ed8e:: with SMTP id c14-v6mr13450316wro.264.1531323459699; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com (2E8B0CD5.catv.pool.telekom.hu. [46.139.12.213]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s10-v6sm3727088wmb.12.2018.07.11.08.37.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:37:37 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: linux-efi , Thomas Gleixner , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Hans de Goede , Wilfried Klaebe Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 0/1] EFI mixed mode fix for v4.18 Message-ID: <20180711153736.GA4500@gmail.com> References: <20180711090235.9327-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20180711101303.GA8574@gmail.com> <20180711111427.GA27216@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 11 July 2018 at 13:14, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > >> On 11 July 2018 at 12:13, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > > >> > * Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> > > >> >> The following changes since commit 1e4b044d22517cae7047c99038abb444423243ca: > >> >> > >> >> Linux 4.18-rc4 (2018-07-08 16:34:02 -0700) > >> >> > >> >> are available in the Git repository at: > >> >> > >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git tags/efi-urgent > >> >> > >> >> for you to fetch changes up to d7f2e972e702d329fe11d6956df99dfc31211c25: > >> >> > >> >> efi/x86: remove pointless call to PciIo->Attributes() (2018-07-11 10:52:46 +0200) > >> >> > >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> A single fix for the x86 PCI I/O protocol handling code that got > >> >> broken for mixed mode (64-bit Linux/x86 on 32-bit UEFI) after a > >> >> fix was applied in -rc2 to fix it for ordinary 64-bit Linux/x86. > >> > > >> > Just curious, because it's unclear from the changelog, what was the symptom, a > >> > boot hang, instant reboot, or some other misbehavior? > >> > >> Hans reported that his mixed mode tablet would not boot at all any > >> more, but enter a reboot loop without any logs printed by the kernel. > >> > >> > Also, what's the scope of > >> > the fix: were all 64-bit on 32-bit UEFI mixed-mode bootups affected, or only a > >> > certain subset? > >> > > >> > >> Any mixed mode system with PCI is likely to be affected. I have added > >> a QEMU mixed mode config to my boot test environment to catch errors > >> like this one. > > > > Ok, I've added this information to the commit - will be useful to backporters, > > to judge the severity of the bug fixed. > > > > Perhaps it wasn't clear from the commit log that only v4.18-rc2 and > later is affected by the mixed mode issue, since that is when a fix > for ordinary 64-bit x86 was applied that affected v4.18-rc1. Ah, ok. Still, if for whatever reason the commit that introduced the problem is backported, this one will be too. The chain of sha1's seemed rather long, so there's a chance for that. > However, the EFI stub code is not expected to expand that much, and so for the > time being, I'm fine with a combination of review and rigorous testing Fair enough! Thanks, Ingo