Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "0xc1b2fe88".
Did you mean:
0xc1b2fe34
2018 Feb 09
0
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...of everything
that's been spilled, of course... and perhaps we're not correctly
adjusting those offsets *back* again by accounting for the fact that
calling the thunk actually moves the stack pointer back up again?
Breakpoint 1, mp_register_ioapic (id=0, address=4273995776, gsi_base=0, cfg=0xc1b2fe88 <init_thread_union+7816>) at arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic_b.c:389
389 bool hotplug = !!ioapic_initialized;
1: x/i $pc
=> 0xc10469c7 <mp_register_ioapic+23>: mov 0xc1d36170,%eax
2: gsi_base = 0
(gdb) ni
393 pr_warn("%s, %d %x %x %px\n", __func__, id, address, gsi_base,...
2018 Feb 09
2
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 10:36 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> Did you get anywhere with the function attribute? Having isolated the
> next boot failure to "it goes away if I compile io_apic.c without
> retpoline", bisecting it per-function would help to further delay the
> bit where I actually have to start *thinking*...
It's mp_register_ioapic(), and only when
2018 Feb 09
3
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...been spilled, of course... and perhaps we're not correctly
> adjusting those offsets *back* again by accounting for the fact that
> calling the thunk actually moves the stack pointer back up again?
>
> Breakpoint 1, mp_register_ioapic (id=0, address=4273995776, gsi_base=0,
> cfg=0xc1b2fe88 <init_thread_union+7816>) at arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic_
> b.c:389
> 389 bool hotplug = !!ioapic_initialized;
> 1: x/i $pc
> => 0xc10469c7 <mp_register_ioapic+23>: mov 0xc1d36170,%eax
> 2: gsi_base = 0
> (gdb) ni
> 393 pr_warn("...