Re: [PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the efi_runtime_disabled case

2016-08-04 Thread Matt Fleming
On Wed, 03 Aug, at 02:36:07PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:28:06AM -0500, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > So, it definitely needs to go in for v4.8, but it's kind of a toss-up > > for the older kernels. I'll discuss this with the other guys around > > here to see what they think,

Re: [PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the efi_runtime_disabled case

2016-08-04 Thread Matt Fleming
On Wed, 03 Aug, at 02:36:07PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:28:06AM -0500, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > So, it definitely needs to go in for v4.8, but it's kind of a toss-up > > for the older kernels. I'll discuss this with the other guys around > > here to see what they think,

Re: [PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the efi_runtime_disabled case

2016-08-03 Thread Alex Thorlton
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:28:06AM -0500, Alex Thorlton wrote: > So, it definitely needs to go in for v4.8, but it's kind of a toss-up > for the older kernels. I'll discuss this with the other guys around > here to see what they think, and get back to you a bit later, if that's > alright? We

Re: [PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the efi_runtime_disabled case

2016-08-03 Thread Alex Thorlton
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:28:06AM -0500, Alex Thorlton wrote: > So, it definitely needs to go in for v4.8, but it's kind of a toss-up > for the older kernels. I'll discuss this with the other guys around > here to see what they think, and get back to you a bit later, if that's > alright? We

Re: [PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the efi_runtime_disabled case

2016-08-01 Thread Alex Thorlton
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 02:49:57PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jul, at 05:38:33PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > This problem has actually been in the UV code for a while, but we didn't > > catch it until recently, because we had been relying on EFI_OLD_MEMMAP > > to allow our systems to

Re: [PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the efi_runtime_disabled case

2016-08-01 Thread Alex Thorlton
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 02:49:57PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jul, at 05:38:33PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > This problem has actually been in the UV code for a while, but we didn't > > catch it until recently, because we had been relying on EFI_OLD_MEMMAP > > to allow our systems to

Re: [PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the efi_runtime_disabled case

2016-08-01 Thread Matt Fleming
On Tue, 26 Jul, at 05:38:33PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > This problem has actually been in the UV code for a while, but we didn't > catch it until recently, because we had been relying on EFI_OLD_MEMMAP > to allow our systems to boot for a period of time. We noticed the issue > when trying to kexec

Re: [PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the efi_runtime_disabled case

2016-08-01 Thread Matt Fleming
On Tue, 26 Jul, at 05:38:33PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > This problem has actually been in the UV code for a while, but we didn't > catch it until recently, because we had been relying on EFI_OLD_MEMMAP > to allow our systems to boot for a period of time. We noticed the issue > when trying to kexec

[PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the efi_runtime_disabled case

2016-07-26 Thread Alex Thorlton
This problem has actually been in the UV code for a while, but we didn't catch it until recently, because we had been relying on EFI_OLD_MEMMAP to allow our systems to boot for a period of time. We noticed the issue when trying to kexec a recent community kernel, where we hit this NULL pointer

[PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the efi_runtime_disabled case

2016-07-26 Thread Alex Thorlton
This problem has actually been in the UV code for a while, but we didn't catch it until recently, because we had been relying on EFI_OLD_MEMMAP to allow our systems to boot for a period of time. We noticed the issue when trying to kexec a recent community kernel, where we hit this NULL pointer