On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 4:54 AM Andrey Konovalov
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Nick Desaulniers
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:13 AM Marc
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 4:54 AM Andrey Konovalov
wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:13 AM Marc Zyngier
wrote:
> >> > - you have checked that with a released
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:13 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> > - you have checked that with a released version of the compiler, you
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:58 AM Andrey Konovalov
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:13 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > - you have checked that with a released version of the compiler, you
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:58 AM Andrey Konovalov
wrote:
> Tested-by: Andrey Konovalov
Hi Andrey,
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> That would definitely be the right thing to do. Make sure you (or
> Andrey tests with the latest released mainline kernel (4.16 for now)
> or (even better) the tip of Linus' tree.
Hi!
I can confirm that after applying
On Fri, 18 May 2018 19:31:50 +0100,
Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:13 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > What I'd really like is to apply that patch knowing that:
>
> > - you have checked that with a released version of the compiler, you
> > don't observe
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:13 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> What I'd really like is to apply that patch knowing that:
> - you have checked that with a released version of the compiler, you
> don't observe any absolute address in any of the objects that are going
> to be executed
On 18/05/18 18:56, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> + Andrey
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:45 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 18/05/18 18:40, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Marc Zyngier
> wrote:
I'm going to ask the question
+ Andrey
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:45 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 18/05/18 18:40, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Marc Zyngier
wrote:
> >> I'm going to ask the question I've asked before when this patch cropped
> >> up
On 18/05/18 18:40, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> I'm going to ask the question I've asked before when this patch cropped
>> up (must be the 4th time now):
>
>> Is it guaranteed that this is the only case where LLVM/clang
+ Andrey (who reported testing this patch in
https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/11)
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:40 AM Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Marc Zyngier
wrote:
> > I'm going to ask the question I've
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> I'm going to ask the question I've asked before when this patch cropped
> up (must be the 4th time now):
> Is it guaranteed that this is the only case where LLVM/clang is going to
> generate absolute addresses instead
On 18/05/18 18:02, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> Starting with LLVM r308050, clang generates a jump table with EL1
> virtual addresses in __init_stage2_translation, which results in a
> kernel panic when booting at EL2:
>
> Kernel panic - not syncing: HYP panic:
> PS:83c9 PC:089e6fd8
13 matches
Mail list logo