From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752182AbeACPmK (ORCPT + 1 other); Wed, 3 Jan 2018 10:42:10 -0500 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:30817 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751207AbeACPmJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jan 2018 10:42:09 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,501,1508828400"; d="scan'208";a="7072459" Subject: Re: CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION=y on x86_64 causes gcc to segfault when building x86_32 binaries To: Thomas Gleixner , Lars Wendler References: <20180103123723.1dd26828@abudhabi.paradoxon.rec> <20180103143036.60e592eb@abudhabi.paradoxon.rec> Cc: LKML , x86@kernel.org, Borislav Betkov , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Greg KH From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 07:42:08 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On 01/03/2018 07:21 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Lars Wendler wrote: >> Am Wed, 3 Jan 2018 13:05:38 +0100 (CET) >> schrieb Thomas Gleixner : >>> Also can you please try Linus v4.15-rc6 with PTI enabled so we can see >>> whether that's a backport issue or a general one? >> Same problem with 4.15-rc6. So I suppose that means it's a general >> issue. > Just a shot in the dark as I just decoded another issue on a AMD CPU. Can > you please try the patch below? Hi Lars, I see the double-faults in your dmesg. Those are usually indicative of a failed user->kernel CR3 switch on entering the kernel. Could you run a copy of the x86 selftests? From the kernel tree I usually do: cd tools/testing/selftests/x86/ make for i in *_64 *_32; do ./$i || break; done See if any of those fail. I wonder if we screwed up something in the SYSCALL code in entry_64_compat.S. It's probably been much more lightly tested than all the other entry code. I'll see if I can reproduce this.