Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: fix the missing ktpi= cmdline check in
 arm64_kernel_unmapped_at_el0()
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
CC:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
References: <20200317114708.109283-1-yaohongbo@huawei.com>
 <20200317121050.GH8831@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20200317124323.GA16200@willie-the-truck>
 <20200317135719.GH3971@sirena.org.uk>
 <20200317151813.GA16579@willie-the-truck>
 <20200317163638.GI3971@sirena.org.uk>
 <20200317210154.GA19752@willie-the-truck>
 <20200318113217.GA4553@sirena.org.uk>
 <20200318201259.GA7463@willie-the-truck>
From:   Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <c94aef1e-7ed7-6902-a16c-d64e5280fb01@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:14:55 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200318201259.GA7463@willie-the-truck>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 2020/3/19 4:13, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 11:32:17AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:01:54PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 04:36:38PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> I'd need to go back and retest to confirm but it looks like always had
>>>> the issue that we'd install some nG mappings early even with KPTI
>>>> disabled on the command line so your change is just restoring the
>>>> previous behaviour and we're no worse than we were before.
>>
>>> Urgh, this code brings back really bad memories :( :( :(
>>
>> Tell me about it.
>>
>>> So I've hacked the following, which appears to work but damn I'd like
>>> somebody else to look at this. I also have a nagging feeling that you
>>> implemented it like this at some point, but we tried to consolidate things
>>> during review.
>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> I don't think I did *exactly* this but it's familiar yeah.  It looks
>> sensible and I can't think of any problems but that doesn't mean there
>> aren't any.
> 
> Well, thanks for having a look!
> 
> Hongbo -- please can you confirm that this fixes the problem that you are
> seeing?
Hi, Will,
Sorry for the late response.

This fixes the problem for me.
Tested-by: Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@huawei.com>

Thanks,
Hongbo.

> Will
> 
> .
>