******************************************
* WARNING: Boot tests are now deprecated *
******************************************
As kernelci.org is expanding its functional testing capabilities, the concept
of boot testing is now deprecated. Boot results are scheduled to be dropped on
*5th June 2020*. The full schedule for boot tests deprecation is available on
this GitHub issue: https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-backend/issues/238
The new equivalent is the *baseline* test suite which also runs sanity checks
using dmesg and bootrr: https://github.com/kernelci/bootrr
See the *baseline results for this kernel revision* on this page:
https://kernelci.org/test/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-5.6.y/kernel/v5.6.15-1…
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stable-rc/linux-5.6.y boot: 93 boots: 2 failed, 83 passed with 2 offline, 5 untried/unknown, 1 conflict (v5.6.15-175-g4ceaad0d95e7)
Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-5.6.y/kernel/v5.6.…
Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-5.6.y/kernel/v5.6.15-175-…
Tree: stable-rc
Branch: linux-5.6.y
Git Describe: v5.6.15-175-g4ceaad0d95e7
Git Commit: 4ceaad0d95e7a56ea839541b0e825af93e4817d9
Git URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
Tested: 80 unique boards, 16 SoC families, 16 builds out of 161
Boot Regressions Detected:
arm:
bcm2835_defconfig:
gcc-8:
bcm2837-rpi-3-b:
lab-baylibre: new failure (last pass: v5.6.15-178-gc72fcbc7d224)
Boot Failures Detected:
arm:
bcm2835_defconfig:
gcc-8:
bcm2837-rpi-3-b: 1 failed lab
sama5_defconfig:
gcc-8:
at91-sama5d4_xplained: 1 failed lab
Offline Platforms:
arm:
exynos_defconfig:
gcc-8
exynos5800-peach-pi: 1 offline lab
qcom_defconfig:
gcc-8
qcom-apq8064-cm-qs600: 1 offline lab
Conflicting Boot Failure Detected: (These likely are not failures as other labs are reporting PASS. Needs review.)
i386:
i386_defconfig:
qemu_i386:
lab-collabora: FAIL (gcc-8)
lab-baylibre: PASS (gcc-8)
---
For more info write to <info(a)kernelci.org>
******************************************
* WARNING: Boot tests are now deprecated *
******************************************
As kernelci.org is expanding its functional testing capabilities, the concept
of boot testing is now deprecated. Boot results are scheduled to be dropped on
*5th June 2020*. The full schedule for boot tests deprecation is available on
this GitHub issue: https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-backend/issues/238
The new equivalent is the *baseline* test suite which also runs sanity checks
using dmesg and bootrr: https://github.com/kernelci/bootrr
See the *baseline results for this kernel revision* on this page:
https://kernelci.org/test/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.14.y/kernel/v4.14.18…
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stable-rc/linux-4.14.y boot: 112 boots: 2 failed, 101 passed with 3 offline, 5 untried/unknown, 1 conflict (v4.14.182-77-ge64996742439)
Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.14.y/kernel/v4.1…
Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.14.y/kernel/v4.14.182-7…
Tree: stable-rc
Branch: linux-4.14.y
Git Describe: v4.14.182-77-ge64996742439
Git Commit: e64996742439b0bbe4cbccf2acc0574f1691faa4
Git URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
Tested: 70 unique boards, 19 SoC families, 14 builds out of 157
Boot Regressions Detected:
i386:
i386_defconfig:
gcc-8:
qemu_i386:
lab-collabora: new failure (last pass: v4.14.182-78-g9093a4315f91)
Boot Failures Detected:
arm64:
defconfig:
gcc-8:
meson-gxbb-p200: 1 failed lab
meson-gxm-q200: 1 failed lab
Offline Platforms:
arm:
multi_v7_defconfig:
gcc-8
exynos5800-peach-pi: 1 offline lab
qcom-apq8064-cm-qs600: 1 offline lab
stih410-b2120: 1 offline lab
Conflicting Boot Failure Detected: (These likely are not failures as other labs are reporting PASS. Needs review.)
i386:
i386_defconfig:
qemu_i386:
lab-collabora: FAIL (gcc-8)
lab-baylibre: PASS (gcc-8)
---
For more info write to <info(a)kernelci.org>
From: Steven Price <steven.price(a)arm.com>
Subject: x86: mm: ptdump: calculate effective permissions correctly
Patch series "Fix W+X debug feature on x86"
Jan alerted me[1] that the W+X detection debug feature was broken in x86
by my change[2] to switch x86 to use the generic ptdump infrastructure.
Fundamentally the approach of trying to move the calculation of effective
permissions into note_page() was broken because note_page() is only called
for 'leaf' entries and the effective permissions are passed down via the
internal nodes of the page tree. The solution I've taken here is to
create a new (optional) callback which is called for all nodes of the page
tree and therefore can calculate the effective permissions.
Secondly on some configurations (32 bit with PAE) "unsigned long" is not
large enough to store the table entries. The fix here is simple - let's
just use a u64.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d573dc7e-e742-84de-473d-f971142fa319@suse.com/
[2] 2ae27137b2db ("x86: mm: convert dump_pagetables to use walk_page_range")
This patch (of 2):
By switching the x86 page table dump code to use the generic code the
effective permissions are no longer calculated correctly because the
note_page() function is only called for *leaf* entries. To calculate the
actual effective permissions it is necessary to observe the full hierarchy
of the page tree.
Introduce a new callback for ptdump which is called for every entry and
can therefore update the prot_levels array correctly. note_page() can
then simply access the appropriate element in the array.
[steven.price(a)arm.com: make the assignment conditional on val != 0]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/430c8ab4-e7cd-6933-dde6-087fac6db872@arm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200521152308.33096-1-steven.price@arm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200521152308.33096-2-steven.price@arm.com
Fixes: 2ae27137b2db ("x86: mm: convert dump_pagetables to use walk_page_range")
Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price(a)arm.com>
Reported-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich(a)suse.com>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai(a)lca.pw>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto(a)kernel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp(a)alien8.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen(a)linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo(a)redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz(a)infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx(a)linutronix.de>
Cc: <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm(a)linux-foundation.org>
---
arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
include/linux/ptdump.h | 1
mm/ptdump.c | 17 +++++++++++++++-
3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c~x86-mm-ptdump-calculate-effective-permissions-correctly
+++ a/arch/x86/mm/dump_pagetables.c
@@ -249,10 +249,22 @@ static void note_wx(struct pg_state *st,
(void *)st->start_address);
}
-static inline pgprotval_t effective_prot(pgprotval_t prot1, pgprotval_t prot2)
+static void effective_prot(struct ptdump_state *pt_st, int level, u64 val)
{
- return (prot1 & prot2 & (_PAGE_USER | _PAGE_RW)) |
- ((prot1 | prot2) & _PAGE_NX);
+ struct pg_state *st = container_of(pt_st, struct pg_state, ptdump);
+ pgprotval_t prot = val & PTE_FLAGS_MASK;
+ pgprotval_t effective;
+
+ if (level > 0) {
+ pgprotval_t higher_prot = st->prot_levels[level - 1];
+
+ effective = (higher_prot & prot & (_PAGE_USER | _PAGE_RW)) |
+ ((higher_prot | prot) & _PAGE_NX);
+ } else {
+ effective = prot;
+ }
+
+ st->prot_levels[level] = effective;
}
/*
@@ -270,16 +282,10 @@ static void note_page(struct ptdump_stat
struct seq_file *m = st->seq;
new_prot = val & PTE_FLAGS_MASK;
-
- if (level > 0) {
- new_eff = effective_prot(st->prot_levels[level - 1],
- new_prot);
- } else {
- new_eff = new_prot;
- }
-
- if (level >= 0)
- st->prot_levels[level] = new_eff;
+ if (!val)
+ new_eff = 0;
+ else
+ new_eff = st->prot_levels[level];
/*
* If we have a "break" in the series, we need to flush the state that
@@ -374,6 +380,7 @@ static void ptdump_walk_pgd_level_core(s
struct pg_state st = {
.ptdump = {
.note_page = note_page,
+ .effective_prot = effective_prot,
.range = ptdump_ranges
},
.level = -1,
--- a/include/linux/ptdump.h~x86-mm-ptdump-calculate-effective-permissions-correctly
+++ a/include/linux/ptdump.h
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ struct ptdump_state {
/* level is 0:PGD to 4:PTE, or -1 if unknown */
void (*note_page)(struct ptdump_state *st, unsigned long addr,
int level, unsigned long val);
+ void (*effective_prot)(struct ptdump_state *st, int level, u64 val);
const struct ptdump_range *range;
};
--- a/mm/ptdump.c~x86-mm-ptdump-calculate-effective-permissions-correctly
+++ a/mm/ptdump.c
@@ -36,6 +36,9 @@ static int ptdump_pgd_entry(pgd_t *pgd,
return note_kasan_page_table(walk, addr);
#endif
+ if (st->effective_prot)
+ st->effective_prot(st, 0, pgd_val(val));
+
if (pgd_leaf(val))
st->note_page(st, addr, 0, pgd_val(val));
@@ -53,6 +56,9 @@ static int ptdump_p4d_entry(p4d_t *p4d,
return note_kasan_page_table(walk, addr);
#endif
+ if (st->effective_prot)
+ st->effective_prot(st, 1, p4d_val(val));
+
if (p4d_leaf(val))
st->note_page(st, addr, 1, p4d_val(val));
@@ -70,6 +76,9 @@ static int ptdump_pud_entry(pud_t *pud,
return note_kasan_page_table(walk, addr);
#endif
+ if (st->effective_prot)
+ st->effective_prot(st, 2, pud_val(val));
+
if (pud_leaf(val))
st->note_page(st, addr, 2, pud_val(val));
@@ -87,6 +96,8 @@ static int ptdump_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmd,
return note_kasan_page_table(walk, addr);
#endif
+ if (st->effective_prot)
+ st->effective_prot(st, 3, pmd_val(val));
if (pmd_leaf(val))
st->note_page(st, addr, 3, pmd_val(val));
@@ -97,8 +108,12 @@ static int ptdump_pte_entry(pte_t *pte,
unsigned long next, struct mm_walk *walk)
{
struct ptdump_state *st = walk->private;
+ pte_t val = READ_ONCE(*pte);
+
+ if (st->effective_prot)
+ st->effective_prot(st, 4, pte_val(val));
- st->note_page(st, addr, 4, pte_val(READ_ONCE(*pte)));
+ st->note_page(st, addr, 4, pte_val(val));
return 0;
}
_
******************************************
* WARNING: Boot tests are now deprecated *
******************************************
As kernelci.org is expanding its functional testing capabilities, the concept
of boot testing is now deprecated. Boot results are scheduled to be dropped on
*5th June 2020*. The full schedule for boot tests deprecation is available on
this GitHub issue: https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-backend/issues/238
The new equivalent is the *baseline* test suite which also runs sanity checks
using dmesg and bootrr: https://github.com/kernelci/bootrr
See the *baseline results for this kernel revision* on this page:
https://kernelci.org/test/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.19.y/kernel/v4.19.12…
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stable-rc/linux-4.19.y boot: 133 boots: 1 failed, 121 passed with 4 offline, 5 untried/unknown, 2 conflicts (v4.19.125-93-g80718197a8a3)
Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.19.y/kernel/v4.1…
Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.19.y/kernel/v4.19.125-9…
Tree: stable-rc
Branch: linux-4.19.y
Git Describe: v4.19.125-93-g80718197a8a3
Git Commit: 80718197a8a3f9c3b222375e5d1de8adf5422000
Git URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
Tested: 79 unique boards, 21 SoC families, 17 builds out of 164
Boot Regressions Detected:
arc:
hsdk_defconfig:
gcc-8:
hsdk:
lab-baylibre: new failure (last pass: v4.19.124)
arm:
sama5_defconfig:
gcc-8:
at91-sama5d4_xplained:
lab-baylibre: failing since 81 days (last pass: v4.19.108-87-g624c124960e8 - first fail: v4.19.109)
Boot Failure Detected:
arm:
sama5_defconfig:
gcc-8:
at91-sama5d4_xplained: 1 failed lab
Offline Platforms:
arm:
exynos_defconfig:
gcc-8
exynos5800-peach-pi: 1 offline lab
multi_v7_defconfig:
gcc-8
exynos5800-peach-pi: 1 offline lab
qcom-apq8064-cm-qs600: 1 offline lab
stih410-b2120: 1 offline lab
Conflicting Boot Failures Detected: (These likely are not failures as other labs are reporting PASS. Needs review.)
x86_64:
x86_64_defconfig:
qemu_x86_64:
lab-collabora: FAIL (gcc-8)
lab-baylibre: PASS (gcc-8)
i386:
i386_defconfig:
qemu_i386:
lab-collabora: FAIL (gcc-8)
lab-baylibre: PASS (gcc-8)
---
For more info write to <info(a)kernelci.org>
******************************************
* WARNING: Boot tests are now deprecated *
******************************************
As kernelci.org is expanding its functional testing capabilities, the concept
of boot testing is now deprecated. Boot results are scheduled to be dropped on
*5th June 2020*. The full schedule for boot tests deprecation is available on
this GitHub issue: https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-backend/issues/238
The new equivalent is the *baseline* test suite which also runs sanity checks
using dmesg and bootrr: https://github.com/kernelci/bootrr
See the *baseline results for this kernel revision* on this page:
https://kernelci.org/test/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.4.y/kernel/v4.4.225-…
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stable-rc/linux-4.4.y boot: 63 boots: 4 failed, 54 passed with 3 offline, 2 untried/unknown (v4.4.225-48-gd147737ac3ba)
Full Boot Summary: https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.4.y/kernel/v4.4.…
Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/stable-rc/branch/linux-4.4.y/kernel/v4.4.225-48-…
Tree: stable-rc
Branch: linux-4.4.y
Git Describe: v4.4.225-48-gd147737ac3ba
Git Commit: d147737ac3bacf4a44c5cfc4a531c308e2fb2027
Git URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
Tested: 45 unique boards, 16 SoC families, 15 builds out of 144
Boot Regressions Detected:
arm:
sama5_defconfig:
gcc-8:
at91-sama5d4_xplained:
lab-baylibre: failing since 68 days (last pass: v4.4.216-127-g955137020949 - first fail: v4.4.217)
Boot Failures Detected:
arm:
mxs_defconfig:
gcc-8:
imx28-duckbill: 1 failed lab
imx_v4_v5_defconfig:
gcc-8:
imx27-phytec-phycard-s-rdk: 1 failed lab
multi_v5_defconfig:
gcc-8:
imx27-phytec-phycard-s-rdk: 1 failed lab
sama5_defconfig:
gcc-8:
at91-sama5d4_xplained: 1 failed lab
Offline Platforms:
arm:
exynos_defconfig:
gcc-8
exynos5800-peach-pi: 1 offline lab
multi_v7_defconfig:
gcc-8
exynos5800-peach-pi: 1 offline lab
qcom-apq8064-cm-qs600: 1 offline lab
---
For more info write to <info(a)kernelci.org>
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:42 AM Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 05:02, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:18 AM Brian Norris <briannorris(a)chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > This reverts commit 2dc016599cfa9672a147528ca26d70c3654a5423.
> > >
> > > Users are reporting regressions in regulatory domain detection and
> > > channel availability.
> > >
> > > The problem this was trying to resolve was fixed in firmware anyway:
> >
> > Should we tell the user their firmware needs to be upgraded if it
> > reports this regulatory domain instead of completely dropping support
> > for it?
I'm not really sure how to do that properly in general, and I don't
plan to do so. I'm simply reverting a change that caused people
problems, and noting at the same time that the original problem was
resolved differently.
I don't really have a stake in this patch, because everything I care
about works correctly either way. (And AFAICT, any hardware that is
affected by this patch is somewhat broken.) I'm only posting the
revert as a community service, because Wen couldn't be bothered to do
it himself.
> Also that commit mentioned a 6174 firmware, but what about all the other older chips with a regulatory domain of 0x0 ?
My understanding was that no QCA modules *should* be shipped with a
value of 0 in this field. The instance I'm aware of was more or less a
manufacturing error I think, and we got Qualcomm to patch it over in
software. I don't think people expected anybody else to have shipped
modules with a 0 value, but apparently they did. I don't know what to
do with those, other than just leave well enough alone (i.e., $subject
revert).
> As a side note, I'd /really appreciate/ if ath10k changes were tested on a variety of ath10k hardware and firmware revisions, rather than just either the Rome or embedded radios, rather than also including peregrine, cascade, besra, etc.
Wouldn't we all love it if everybody else tested appropriately. But
Qualcomm folks can't be coordinated (trust me, I've tried), and apart
from things like KernelCI (which so far has no WiFi tests, IIUC),
there's no community testing efforts that don't involve
"${RANDOM_PERSON} boots ${PERSONAL_BOX} and see if it blows up."
This also might not be the best place to admit it, but I'll be up
front: I have no idea what peregrine, cascade, or besra are.
Brian