On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 01:02:30PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:20:11AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 09:15:54AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
The result is that this change is turning a perfectly valid HYP VA into... something. Odds are that the masking/patching will not mess up the address, but this is completely buggy anyway. In general, kern_hyp_va() is not an idempotent operation.
IIUC today it *happens* to be idempotent, but as you say that is not guaranteed to remain the case, and this is definitely a logical bug.
I think so, yes. I suspect the idempotency confused me.
Greg, it may be more prudent to unstage this series from 6.12-stable until we know for sure this is the only problem.
As above, likewise with the v6.13 version.
Yes, please unstage these. I'll send out new versions.
All now dropped from both queues, thanks.
greg k-h