From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752686AbdJ0T3A (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 15:29:00 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:48665 "EHLO mail-wm0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752522AbdJ0T27 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 15:28:59 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SxpjeBndAtbLRpAWb144ACXilDw4VQITH0IA1PXOef7ZE1wRVMFS5V16kwGvlEba3cvZD6zyIs0c5MQnz9VSU= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171027192417.d2x4cy6ra7fghjzw@gmail.com> References: <440615a7-6cc0-a607-ce7c-22a34b69e8fe@eikelenboom.it> <1d203c07-0595-a33a-620b-c51eea9721d1@eikelenboom.it> <8721eeac-a644-e815-55e9-5f01956dd22a@eikelenboom.it> <20171026163911.dnovh4zaik5qumtt@gmail.com> <20171026190229.zt743ooxvjsukmis@gmail.com> <20171027192417.d2x4cy6ra7fghjzw@gmail.com> From: Craig Bergstrom Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:28:56 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ce56a86e2a ("x86/mm: Limit mmap() of /dev/mem to valid physical addresses"): kernel BUG at arch/x86/mm/physaddr.c:79! To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , Sander Eikelenboom , Boris Ostrovsky , Fengguang Wu , wfg@linux.intel.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , LKP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sounds good. Thanks for the context. I'll keep this on my plate and I'll turn something around once I've had a chance to test a bit, probably next week. On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Craig Bergstrom wrote: > >> Reverting seems like the right approach at the moment. My apologies >> for the breakage so late the in the cycle. > > Note that there's no need for you to apologize and you carry exactly zero amount > of blame for the late-cycle breakage: it was my decision to send it to Linus so > quickly, you never asked for it to be sent upstream on such a short notice. > > ( Classic "patch makes sense, looks good, other arches ar doing this too, and I > tested it myself too on multiple systems, so it must be obviously fine for > everyone" moment. ) > > Your change still makes sense from a robustness POV, so please send it again with > the suggested fixes - and I'll be more careful with the upstream merge this time. > > Thanks, > > Ingo