On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:16:03 +0000, David Long dave.long@linaro.org wrote:
On 11/13/18 9:23 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
Russell,
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 16:54:10 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux linux@armlinux.org.uk wrote:
Marc,
Can you please ack this to say that you are now happy with it after your comments on version 1, so we can move forward and have Greg merge it.
Thanks.
On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 11:43:47AM -0500, David Long wrote:
From: Russell King rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk
Commit 10115105cb3aa17b5da1cb726ae8dd5f6854bd93 upstream. Commit 6282e916f774e37845c65d1eae9f8c649004f033 upstream.
Add firmware based hardening for cores that require more complex handling in firmware.
Signed-off-by: Russell King rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk Boot-tested-by: Tony Lindgren tony@atomide.com Reviewed-by: Tony Lindgren tony@atomide.com Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier marc.zyngier@arm.com Signed-off-by: David A. Long dave.long@linaro.org
Sure. Feel free to add my
Acked-by: Marc Zyngier marc.zyngier@arm.com
I assume someone has tested these patches (I haven't, and I'm unlikely to do so in the near future as I'm travelling). I'm not sure Tony's "Boot-tested-by" is still valid, and Florian's earlier set of tests didn't show the issues of the initial backport.
Thanks,
M.
I tested the patch set through kernelci and (belatedly) kvm-unit-tests, the latter of which revealed the problem in V1 #11/24. I have to assume Florian didn't specifically test kvm, something I myself had originally assumed would be covered by kernelci.
I didn't scrub any of the ack/tested/reviewed lines from the original patches. I've always assumed this is the correct way to do this but maybe it's not?
Leaving the tags is absolutely fine, they indicate that the original patch was actually tested.
I'm more worried of potential regressions: we've already found two problems, and although I cannot spot any other, it is fairly obvious that there has only been a limited amount of testing. It may not be a problem, but I'd rather be cautious.
Thanks,
M.