On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 03:42:56PM +0100, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> > On 20 August 2013 11:03, P J P wrote:
> > > -> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/7/259
> > >
> > > I wanted to confirm if this above fix should also go into ARM64 build Or
> > > is
> > >
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On 20 August 2013 11:03, P J P wrote:
> > -> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/7/259
> >
> > I wanted to confirm if this above fix should also go into ARM64 build Or is
> > ARM64 platform not vulnerable?
>
> It is and I'll push patches to mainline (Will
On 20 August 2013 11:03, P J P wrote:
> -> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/7/259
>
> I wanted to confirm if this above fix should also go into ARM64 build Or is
> ARM64 platform not vulnerable?
It is and I'll push patches to mainline (Will is preparing them).
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this li
Hello,
-> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/7/259
I wanted to confirm if this above fix should also go into ARM64 build Or is
ARM64 platform not vulnerable?
===
$ git diff
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
index 9ba33c4..cbed82f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:30:33PM +0100, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
> > > index d9f5cd4..0500f10b 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_eve
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 02:00:27PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 02:08:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:59:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Ok, so the following quick hack below should solve the iss
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > Ok, so the following quick hack below should solve the issue (can you
> > confirm
> > it please, since I don't have access to any hardware atm?)
> >
> > We should revisit this for 3.12 though, because I'm not
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> Ok, so the following quick hack below should solve the issue (can you confirm
> it please, since I don't have access to any hardware atm?)
>
> We should revisit this for 3.12 though, because I'm not sure that our
> validation code even does the right thing
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 02:00:27PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 02:08:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:59:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > But we already check `event->pmu != leader_pmu' in validate_event, so we
> > > shouldn't get anywhere n
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 02:08:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:59:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > But we already check `event->pmu != leader_pmu' in validate_event, so we
> > shouldn't get anywhere nearer calling get_event_idx in the case you
> > describe. It sounds m
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:59:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:19:32PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:17:37PM +0100, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > > It looks like in validate_event() we do
> > >
> > > struct arm_pmu *armpmu = to_arm_pmu(event
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 12:19:32PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:17:37PM +0100, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > It looks like in validate_event() we do
> >
> > struct arm_pmu *armpmu = to_arm_pmu(event->pmu);
> > ...
> > return armpmu->get_event_idx(hw_eve
Hi Vince,
Thanks for the report.
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:17:37PM +0100, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
> > My perf_fuzzer quickly triggers this oops on my ARM Cortex A9 pandaboard
> > running Linux 3.11-rc4.
> >
> > Below is the oops, I've attached a simple C
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Vince Weaver wrote:
> My perf_fuzzer quickly triggers this oops on my ARM Cortex A9 pandaboard
> running Linux 3.11-rc4.
>
> Below is the oops, I've attached a simple C test case that triggers the
> bug.
Also, if it helps, the disassembled code in question.
It looks like in
My perf_fuzzer quickly triggers this oops on my ARM Cortex A9 pandaboard
running Linux 3.11-rc4.
Below is the oops, I've attached a simple C test case that triggers the
bug.
Vince
[ 8110.698669] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
fffe
[ 8110.706390] pgd = ecd88000
15 matches
Mail list logo