From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from gwu.lbox.cz (gwu.lbox.cz [62.245.111.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4140D521894 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 18:41:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.245.111.132 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790793670; cv=none; b=RJfLDmKnvSPbJZQFAMWWYb9P4D8F/mXH/fVDlJzNR8XkgewDtjvW93tS1P+d3c+o/iGNK8tOaUOKfzLoqY9xqGjzDS2tM/eobG9DFDqfTD/lXIsFJhkwGDlY3eQ+LrLC3pgPyW+9bMHCjKdt5/CaD0yTDQxcyDiCDm3WNaltceg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790793670; c=relaxed/simple; bh=coiuWKEKyf6N6g1IKuJroxdQZLcdsd6Mn8u6PehWHoA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=LNWjjdDDH8jlPy4IH1s28PJRMoTduxGrY1I69RIKtPMI1WEbAUPdnGd/buLTfprPVZZZcKxBpiXJdFc5yq9bn0wxf0W60UKh7l93+X8zoTg5BDPKI4HTE2lYBHI5IZubhZWOOs0yDmiUyDwn/wg9UPAss3XnN3Ne/M4gKk5ZfNM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxbox.cz; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxbox.cz; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxbox.cz header.i=@linuxbox.cz header.b=HyAdT/rm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.245.111.132 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxbox.cz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxbox.cz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxbox.cz header.i=@linuxbox.cz header.b="HyAdT/rm" Received: from linuxbox.linuxbox.cz (linuxbox.linuxbox.cz [10.76.66.10]) by gwu.lbox.cz (Sendmail) with ESMTPS id 68UIeRrL3595274 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Sep 2026 20:40:27 +0200 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 gwu.lbox.cz 68UIeRrL3595274 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxbox.cz; s=default; t=1790793628; bh=UQWLRh3cX6MfBpqZVLbNMuRtWRQ1VYNiu2fQhkvtL34=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=HyAdT/rmOxoXRyWcabqH9NuxGQOg1f3d3+pRv+UfT0eNMm5SUrw36bNlFLQgKPrP7 kJWTBeKnbKn+9izN0S80adjyt1kNPtLbMHrT8XWU76mQZsE1W9MMd9Im7utlYmP9hD x+SCeYCM/vlCdWX03EsostEOH5kGxR/r1PbuKm00= Received: from pcnci.linuxbox.cz (pcnci.linuxbox.cz [10.76.3.14]) by linuxbox.linuxbox.cz (Sendmail) with ESMTPS id 68UIeQTt020450 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Sep 2026 20:40:26 +0200 Received: from pcnci.linuxbox.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pcnci.linuxbox.cz (8.18.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 68UIeNha2112989 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 30 Sep 2026 20:40:25 +0200 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 20:40:23 +0200 From: Nikola Ciprich To: "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@kernel.org, Mike Rapoport , Dave Hansen , Pedro Falcato , Kiryl Shutsemau , luizcap@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, Nikola Ciprich Subject: Re: hunting memory corruption bug in 6.18.x Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.7.1 on 10.76.66.3 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang v3.7.1/SpamAssassin v4.000002 on lbxovapx9 (nik) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.86 on 10.76.66.10 X-Antivirus: on lbxovapx9 by Antivirus X-Spam-Score: N/A (trusted relay) X-Milter-Copy-Status: O (CC Paolo Bonzini) Hello Lorenzo, > > Yeah 6.18.15 is expected, I'd not say reverting is really worthwhile honestly, > given what you've observed previously. yes, I wasn't available at the time he was dealing with that.. > > Maybe worth checking if commit 26505e1b5b54 ("KVM: SVM: make svm_flush_tlb_gva > do a full asid flush if NPT enabled") helps in that case? sure, I'll do that.. however, the patch doesn't apply cleanly on top of 6.18.54 at all.. what do you guys recommend, is it OK to adjust the patch to this kernel (I have to admit I'm able to do that, but without any deep knowledge of the subsystem) or do you recommend to apply some of the previous patches? tried going through them, but its ~134 commits affecting svm.c between v6.18 and 26505e1b5b54 cheers nik > > -- > Cheers, Lorenzo > -- Ing. Nikola CIPRICH technický ředitel +420 591 166 214 +420 777 093 799 nikola.ciprich@linuxbox.cz www.linuxbox.cz