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:   Sun, 6 Dec 2020 10:46:00 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     dann frazier <dann.frazier@canonical.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 17/70] crypto: arm64/sha - avoid non-standard inline
 asm tricks
Message-ID: <X8yoWHNzfl7vHVRA@kroah.com>
References: <20181126105046.722096341@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20181126105048.515352194@linuxfoundation.org>
 <X7wgQ0EW4wKERbkq@xps13.dannf>
 <X8vwAPhPyKwElFa5@xps13.dannf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <X8vwAPhPyKwElFa5@xps13.dannf>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 01:39:28PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 01:49:07PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:50:32AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > 
> > fyi, I bisected a regression down to this commit. This apparently
> > causes an ADR_PREL_PG_HI21 relocation to be added to the sha{1,2}_ce
> > modules. Back in 4.4 ADR_PREL_PG_HI21 relocations were forbidden if
> > built with CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_843419=y, so now the sha{1,2}_ce modules
> > fail to load:
> > 
> > [   37.866250] module sha1_ce: unsupported RELA relocation: 275
> > 
> > Looks like it should be an issue for 4.14.y as well, but I haven't yet
> > tested it.
> 
> This regression appears to be limited to 4.4.y. I didn't find it when
> testing 4.9.y, and a 2nd bisection determined that it is because
> 4.9.y+ also contains a backport of commit 41c066f ("arm64: assembler:
> make adr_l work in modules under KASLR"). That was pulled from 4.4.y
> because it caused a build failure:
> 
>   https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg179709.html
> 
> Shall I submit a revert of this patch for 4.4.y, or is it worth trying
> to get a backport of 41c066f to work?

Which ever you think would be best is fine.

thanks,

greg k-h