Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
From:   "Kenneth R. Crudup" <kenny@panix.com>
Reply-To: "Kenneth R. Crudup" <kenny@panix.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Commit 25f12ae45fc1 ("maccess: rename probe_kernel_address to
 get_kernel_nofault") causing several OOPSes
In-Reply-To: <20200619074233.GA3723@lst.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2006200640370.2845@xps-7390>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2006181751270.9276@xps-7390> <20200619065007.GA3041@lst.de> <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2006182351090.9276@xps-7390> <20200619074233.GA3723@lst.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> > Thing is, there's other examples of the previous version in the kernel tree- any
> > chance there's a usage conflict (Thunderbolt has a ROM in it, maybe something in
> > "probe_roms.c"? (Just guessing, no idea):

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> Maybe.  But nothing looks strange there.  Just to re-reconfirm, you had to
> revert "maccess: rename probe_kernel_address to get_kernel_nofault",
> "maccess: make get_kernel_nofault() check for minimal type compatibility"
> wasn't enough?

Yeah, the only commit I had to revert was this one. BUT:

> Below is a patch to do a "partial revert" for probe_roms.c.  I'd be
> totally surprised if it changes anything from staring at it for while,
> but anyway..

So, be totally surprised :) I've just booted with "maccess: rename
probe_kernel_address to get_kernel_nofault" intact and your probe_roms.c
patch with no issues.

(Perhaps there's some sort of compiler optimization going on?)

	-Kenny

-- 
Kenneth R. Crudup  Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Orange County CA