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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171027192417.d2x4cy6ra7fghjzw@gmail.com>
References: <CAOJUGyfTM2J-P29yPhUx2A2SDjA0rv972SE0hmbMHonthMd_bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <440615a7-6cc0-a607-ce7c-22a34b69e8fe@eikelenboom.it> <1d203c07-0595-a33a-620b-c51eea9721d1@eikelenboom.it>
 <8721eeac-a644-e815-55e9-5f01956dd22a@eikelenboom.it> <CAOJUGye8nXL-J9oArLLMFz-RPRdKFe6EgqtYPSr5kcWoH2EodQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171026163911.dnovh4zaik5qumtt@gmail.com> <CAOJUGycO494NcvJk89MMub9Tbrj6FUoSNN4SOci7NgJRKq7v=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171026190229.zt743ooxvjsukmis@gmail.com> <CA+55aFw_7PFDnTRO1C6gH99vdY+w77Rp_8Ns8krSjxmxSs6mVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJUGyfZxbhyMuh3zE77R3b30RF3Xi7jB4_mmSjhWtFQhVc5jQ@mail.gmail.com> <20171027192417.d2x4cy6ra7fghjzw@gmail.com>
From:   Craig Bergstrom <craigb@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:28:56 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOJUGydTX7A=1-ZnODDJ+qAMbvFeb1TabLRKKx9BaLmDUOSj6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ce56a86e2a ("x86/mm: Limit mmap() of /dev/mem to valid physical
 addresses"): kernel BUG at arch/x86/mm/physaddr.c:79!
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Sander Eikelenboom <linux@eikelenboom.it>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, wfg@linux.intel.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKP <lkp@01.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Sounds good.  Thanks for the context.

I'll keep this on my plate and I'll turn something around once I've
had a chance to test a bit, probably next week.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Craig Bergstrom <craigb@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Reverting seems like the right approach at the moment.  My apologies
>> for the breakage so late the in the cycle.
>
> Note that there's no need for you to apologize and you carry exactly zero amount
> of blame for the late-cycle breakage: it was my decision to send it to Linus so
> quickly, you never asked for it to be sent upstream on such a short notice.
>
> ( Classic "patch makes sense, looks good, other arches ar doing this too, and I
>   tested it myself too on multiple systems, so it must be obviously fine for
>   everyone" moment. )
>
> Your change still makes sense from a robustness POV, so please send it again with
> the suggested fixes - and I'll be more careful with the upstream merge this time.
>
> Thanks,
>
>         Ingo

From 1582439962923754008@xxx Fri Oct 27 19:25:49 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582105239086831553
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums