linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/uncore: fix IMC missing box initialization

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150609083358.GP3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 9 Jun 2015 10:33:58 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/uncore: fix IMC missing box initialization

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:00:30PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I'm for the clean revert I think. Crashing is bad, but hiding/delaying
> > it seems counter productive too, it'll just mean we'll only learn about
> > it later.
> 
> So should I revert c05199e5a57a, with a Cc: stable?

Yep.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/