Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-22 Thread Ian Campbell
On Mon, 2016-08-22 at 11:03 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > I thought there was a control bit on ARMv8 too which made it cause a > > fault if the code loaded through, stored via, branched to etc an > > address with bits set between the maximum physical address bit and the > > bits

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-22 Thread Leif Lindholm
X-Debbugs-CC: ard.biesheu...@linaro.org On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 02:46:06PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > I seem to remember that AArch64 has the ill-advised rule that VA bits > > > outside the range of the current page table format are ignored, so > > > presumably you're concerned that the

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-22 Thread Leif Lindholm
X-Debbugs-CC: ard.biesheu...@linaro.org On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 03:04:02PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 11:42 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > > You're not wrong, but unfortunately the ability to write semi-portable > > code left the planet over a decade ago. For

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-22 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 01:11:15 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 13:42 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:50:49PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-21 Thread Ian Campbell
On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 11:42 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: >  > You're not wrong, but unfortunately the ability to write semi-portable > code left the planet over a decade ago. For clarification - the > problem is not with regards to code written specifically for arm64 and > not verified with

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-21 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 11:42 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 01:11:15AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this would be opening up a real can of worms. Not all sizes > > > > > are supported by the architecture, and only certain

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-21 Thread Leif Lindholm
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 01:11:15AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > I think this would be opening up a real can of worms. Not all sizes > > > > are supported by the architecture, and only certain VA_BITS/pagesize > > > > combinations work in the kernel. > > > > > > > > We could switch to

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-20 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 13:42 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:50:49PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everything using mozilla-js). > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Could we possibly work around that by

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-19 Thread Leif Lindholm
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:50:49PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >> > > > everything using mozilla-js). > >> [...] > >> > >> Could we possibly work around that by reducing > >> CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS_MAX?  (That's not directly configurable; it > >> requires patching arch/arm64/Kconfig.) > > >

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-19 Thread Ben Hutchings
On 19 August 2016 11:26:55 BST, Leif Lindholm wrote: >On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 02:04:07AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> > > > So please enable CONFIG_ARM64_VA_BITS_48 for arm64 kernels. >> > > > >> > > > Note: this change _will_ cause breakage in certain userland

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-19 Thread Leif Lindholm
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 02:04:07AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > So please enable CONFIG_ARM64_VA_BITS_48 for arm64 kernels. > > > > > > > > Note: this change _will_ cause breakage in certain userland software > > > > making non-portable assumptions about available of top address bits > > >

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-18 Thread Ben Hutchings
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 01:13:28PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > > > > Package: linux > > > Version: 4.6.4-1 > > > > > > > > > X-Debbugs-CC: st...@einval.com, woo...@wookware.org, > > > > > > > > > zheng...@linaro.org > > > > > > Upstream commit 211102d85 ("arm64: defconfig: enable

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-18 Thread Hector Oron
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:39:15PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 01:13:28PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > Package: linux > > Version: 4.6.4-1 > > X-Debbugs-CC: st...@einval.com, woo...@wookware.org, zheng...@linaro.org > > > > Upstream commit 211102d85 ("arm64: defconfig:

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-16 Thread Hector Oron
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 01:13:28PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > Package: linux > Version: 4.6.4-1 > X-Debbugs-CC: st...@einval.com, woo...@wookware.org, zheng...@linaro.org > > Upstream commit 211102d85 ("arm64: defconfig: enable 48-bit virtual > addresses") changed the default configuration for

Bug#834505: arm64 boot failure with large physical memory range

2016-08-16 Thread Leif Lindholm
Package: linux Version: 4.6.4-1 X-Debbugs-CC: st...@einval.com, woo...@wookware.org, zheng...@linaro.org Upstream commit 211102d85 ("arm64: defconfig: enable 48-bit virtual addresses") changed the default configuration for arm64 to be 48-bit VA (CONFIG_ARM64_VA_BITS_48). This is required in order