On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 03:00:11PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > fb43d6cb91ef x86/mm: Do not auto-massage page protections <--- NOT OK
Hmm, that hunk from above patch looks suspicious: - set_pgd(pgd + pgd_index(restore_jump_address), __pgd(__pa(pud) | _KERNPG_TABLE)); + pgd_t new_pgd = __pgd(__pa(p4d) | pgprot_val(pgtable_prot)); + set_pgd(pgd + pgd_index(restore_jump_address), new_pgd); The old code used __pa(pud) while the new one uses __pa(p4d). Boris, can you change that back to __pa(pud) and test please? Thanks, Joerg