[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160106133155.GD2671@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:31:55 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.12 25/91] x86/setup: Extend low identity map to cover
whole kernel range
On Wed, 06 Jan, at 11:24:55AM, Luis Henriques wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 11:00:31AM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Jan, at 11:47:20AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >
> > > Without testing the problematic scenario explicitly (32-bit UEFI
> > > kernel), I think this patch and 26/91 should not be backported to
> > > kernels that do not have 23a0d4e8fa6d.
> >
> > I tend to agree.
>
> I can see these 2 commits in kernels as old as 3.10 (which definitely do
> not include 23a0d4e8fa6d). Does this mean these should be reverted from
> stable kernels that already include these patches? Or would you rather
> recommend to backport 23a0d4e8fa6d?
That depends on your appetite for risk ;-)
23a0d4e8fa6d does fix a legitimate bug, albeit one that no one seems
to have ever hit. Personally, I'd go for backporting 23a0d4e8fa6d.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists