linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 033/120] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix hardcoded socket 0 assumption in the Haswell init code

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

Message-ID: <20170119114925.GA19236@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:49:25 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Harish Chegondi <harish.chegondi@...el.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 033/120] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix hardcoded socket
 0 assumption in the Haswell init code

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:32:46AM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/18/2017 05:25 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> 4.9 is broken and requires additional patches beyond this patch.  Applying this 
> >> patch to 4.9 stable without those additional fixes will result in kernel panics 
> >> on some Haswell systems that boot on random cores.
> > 
> > Could you list the patches that are required? It would be nice to backport all 
> > required fixes to v4.9.
> > 
> 
> Yeah, I'm going to do that once I get the system back.  I have a feeling that
> just the two additional patches are required but I want to make sure before I
> post anything.

So what do I do here?  Drop this single patch?  Add others now?  Ignore
it and leave it as-is?

still confused,

greg k-h