Subject: [linux-next PATCH] arm64: fix kernel crash with 48-bit VA and 64KB granule

From: [email-masked] (Will Deacon)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 09:51:07 +0000

Dennis,

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 04:59:30PM +0800, Dennis Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:54:42AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On 6 January 2016 at 09:52, Dennis Chen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 08:42:20AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > >> On 6 January 2016 at 08:38, Dennis Chen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > >> > Well, if the build system changes the link order, it can't make sure it will break something
> > >> > unexpectedly, needless to say the pgd_cache_init here at all.
> > >>
> > >> That is no excuse to introduce yet another failure mode.
> > >>
> > >> > Do you think the kernel
> > >> > will change its currently link order policy? If the answer is yes, what's the benefit?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> It does not matter what I think. You seem to think that the link order
> > >> is set in stone, so it is you who should argue why that is a
> > >> reasonable assumption.
> > >>
> > > OK, If you think the link order is volatile, how can you guarantee the arm_enable_runtime_services with early_initcall
> > > always work in a volatile link order environment?
> > >
> > 
> > By not relying on other early_initcalls
> > 
> You're limiting the scope of the link order

Please stop this mindless bickering. It's a waste of everybody's time and
we have a kernel to test.

Will