On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 13:27, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 08:33:47AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 03:44, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
From: Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
[ Upstream commit 71e0940d52e107748b270213a01d3b1546657d74 ]
In order to allow the OS to reserve memory persistently across a kexec, introduce a Linux-specific UEFI configuration table that points to the head of a linked list in memory, allowing each kernel to add list items describing memory regions that the next kernel should treat as reserved.
This is useful, e.g., for GICv3 based ARM systems that cannot disable DMA access to the LPI tables, forcing them to reuse the same memory region again after a kexec reboot.
Tested-by: Jeremy Linton jeremy.linton@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org
NAK
This doesn't belong in -stable, and I'd be interested in understanding how this got autoselected, and how I can prevent this from happening again in the future.
It was selected because it's part of a fix for a real issue reported by users:
For my understanding, are you saying your AI is reading launchpad bug reports etc? Because it is marked AUTOSEL.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1806766
That pages mentions
""" 2 upstream patch series are required to fix this: https://<email address hidden>/msg10328.html Which provides an EFI facility consumed by: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/21/1066 There were also some follow-on fixes to deal with ARM-specific problems associated with this usage: https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg685751.html """
and without the other patches, we only add bugs and don't fix any.
Besides ubuntu, it is also carried by:
SUSE: https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2019/suse-su-20191530-1/ CentOS: https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=4558
As a way to resolve the reported bug.
Backporting a feature/fix like this requires careful consideration of the patches involved, and doing actual testing on hardware.
Any reason this *shouldn't* be in stable?
Yes. By itself, it causes crashes at early boot and does not actually solve the problem.
I'm aware that there might be dependencies that are not obvious to me, but the solution here is to take those dependencies as well rather than ignore the process completely.
This is not a bugfix. kexec/kdump never worked correctly on the hardware involved, and backporting a feature like that goes way beyond what I am willing to accept for stable backports affecting the EFI subsystem.