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
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
---
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
---
On 20 August 2013 11:03, P J P ppan...@redhat.com 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
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On 20 August 2013 11:03, P J P ppan...@redhat.com 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
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 ppan...@redhat.com 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 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
> > > ---
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
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
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
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
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
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 more
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 nearer
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, 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 sure that
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 issue (can
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_event.c
+++
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 =
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
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
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 test
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_events, event)
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-pmu);
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
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
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
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
