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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210509173029.1653182-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
 <CAMj1kXGt1zrRQused3xgXzhQYfDchgH325iRDCZrx+7o1+bUnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5f8fed97-8c73-73b0-6576-bf3fbcdb1440@gmail.com> <YJjkOLg/Ivo2kMOS@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <YJjkOLg/Ivo2kMOS@kroah.com>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 11:37:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb+4OFpsJAPkEjTBBf_+VTUvKkzsDb9xaSOxqhNSWkeeg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable 5.10 0/3] ARM FDT relocation backports
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@gooogle.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
        Tian Tao <tiantao6@hisilicon.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM PORT" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:43 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 06:22:05PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:

> > This does not qualify as a regression in that it has never worked for
> > the specific platform that I have shown above until your 3 commits came
> > in and fixed that particular FDT placement. To me this qualifies as a
> > bug fix, and given that the 3 (now 4) commits applied without hunks, it
> > seems reasonable to me to back port those to stable.
>
> As this isn't a regression, why not just use 5.12 on these platforms?
> Why is 5.4 and 5.10 needed?

Actually I think it *is* a regression, but not a common one. The bug that
Ard is fixing can appear when the kernel grows over a certain size.

If a user compile in a new set of functionality and the kernel size
reach a tripping point so that the DTB ends up just outside the 1:1
lowmem map, disaster strikes.

This has been a long standing mysterious bug for people using
attached device trees.

Yours,
Linus Walleij