FAILED: patch "[PATCH] x86/e820: Fix handling of subpage regions when calculating" failed to apply to 6.12-stable tree
Subsystems (2)
[email protected]
maintainerThe patch below does not apply to the 6.12-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.
To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.12.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x f2f29da9f0d4367f6ff35e0d9d021257bb53e273
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<[email protected]>' --in-reply-to '2025041735-reflector-backdrop-ceb9@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.12.y' HEAD^..
Possible dependencies:
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From f2f29da9f0d4367f6ff35e0d9d021257bb53e273 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Myrrh Periwinkle <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 11:45:22 +0700
Subject: [PATCH] x86/e820: Fix handling of subpage regions when calculating
nosave ranges in e820__register_nosave_regions()
While debugging kexec/hibernation hangs and crashes, it turned out that the current implementation of e820__register_nosave_regions() suffers from multiple serious issues:
- The end of last region is tracked by PFN, causing it to find holes that aren't there if two consecutive subpage regions are present
- The nosave PFN ranges derived from holes are rounded out (instead of rounded in) which makes it inconsistent with how explicitly reserved regions are handled
Fix this by:
- Treating reserved regions as if they were holes, to ensure consistent handling (rounding out nosave PFN ranges is more correct as the kernel does not use partial pages)
- Tracking the end of the last RAM region by address instead of pages to detect holes more precisely
These bugs appear to have been introduced about ~18 years ago with the very first version of e820_mark_nosave_regions(), and its flawed assumptions were carried forward uninterrupted through various waves of rewrites and renames.
[ mingo: Added Git archeology details, for kicks and giggles. ]
arch/x86/kernel/e820.c +8 -9
@@ -753,22 +753,21 @@ void __init e820__memory_setup_extended(u64 phys_addr, u32 data_len)void __init e820__register_nosave_regions (unsigned long limit_pfn) {int i; -unsigned long pfn =0 ; +u64 last_addr =0 ;for (i =0 ; i < e820_table->nr_entries; i++) {struct e820_entry *entry = &e820_table->entries[i]; -if (pfn <PFN_UP (entry->addr)) -register_nosave_region (pfn,PFN_UP (entry->addr)); - - pfn =PFN_DOWN (entry->addr + entry->size); -if (entry->type !=E820_TYPE_RAM ) -register_nosave_region (PFN_UP (entry->addr), pfn); +continue ; -if (pfn >= limit_pfn) -break ; +if (last_addr < entry->addr) +register_nosave_region (PFN_DOWN (last_addr),PFN_UP (entry->addr)); + + last_addr = entry->addr + entry->size; } + +register_nosave_region (PFN_DOWN (last_addr), limit_pfn); }#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI