On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 11:11:14AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 06:57:06AM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 01:50:11PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:39:04AM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > > > Otherwise, we see warnings like this: > > > > > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] unexpected static_call insn opcode 0xf at kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c:88 __static_call_validate+0x68/0x70 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] Modules linked in: > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.15.151-00083-gf200c7260296 #68 fe3cb25cf78cb710722bb5acd1cadddd35172924 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] RIP: 0010:__static_call_validate+0x68/0x70 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] Code: 0f b6 4a 04 81 f1 c0 00 00 00 09 c1 74 cc 80 3d be 2c 02 02 00 75 c3 c6 05 b5 2c 02 02 01 48 c7 c7 38 4f c3 82 e8 e8 c8 09 00 <0f> 0b c3 00 00 cc cc 00 53 48 89 fb 48 63 15 31 71 06 02 > > > > e8 b0 b8 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] RSP: 0000:ffffffff82e03e70 EFLAGS: 00010046 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000002 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff82e03ce0 RDI: 0000000000000001 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: 00000000ffffffff R09: ffffffff82eaab70 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] R10: ffffffff82e2e900 R11: 205d305420202020 R12: ffffffff82e51960 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] R13: ffffffff81038987 R14: ffffffff81038987 R15: 0000000000000001 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff83726000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] CR2: ffff888000014be8 CR3: 00000000037b2000 CR4: 00000000000000a0 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] Call Trace: > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] <TASK> > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? __warn+0x75/0xe0 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? report_bug+0x81/0xe0 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? early_fixup_exception+0x44/0xa0 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? early_idt_handler_common+0x2f/0x40 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? kvm_vcpu_reload_apic_access_page+0x17/0x30 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? __static_call_validate+0x68/0x70 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? arch_static_call_transform+0x5c/0x90 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? __static_call_init+0x1ec/0x230 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? static_call_init+0x32/0x70 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? setup_arch+0x36/0x4f0 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? start_kernel+0x67/0x400 > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ? secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb1/0xbb > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] </TASK> > > > > [ 0.000000][ T0] ---[ end trace 8c8589c01f370686 ]--- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter Zijlstra (3): > > > > x86/alternatives: Introduce int3_emulate_jcc() > > > > x86/alternatives: Teach text_poke_bp() to patch Jcc.d32 instructions > > > > x86/static_call: Add support for Jcc tail-calls > > > > > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/text-patching.h | 31 +++++++++++++++ > > > > arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > > > arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c | 38 ++++--------------- > > > > arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > > 4 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) > > > > > > Why is there a v2 series here? Are the ones I just took not correct? > > > > > > confused, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > Because Sasha questioned the presence of the first 2 patches in the series > > while they were not backported to 6.1. Then, I looked at the 6.1 backport for > > reference and determined they were not really necessary if I picked the same > > changes that the 6.1 backport applied. > > So is what I queued up correct or not? > > still confused, > > greg k-h > Either version are good. I understand there is a preference for v2 since it doesn't include a change that was not applied in a later series, 6.1.y. Cascardo.
