linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] Fix MTRR bug for intel-lpss-pci

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]

Date:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:52:53 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Tuowen Zhao <ztuowen@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, acelan.kao@...onical.com,
        mcgrof@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] Fix MTRR bug for intel-lpss-pci

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 09:22:01AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 08:31:16AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2019, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 03:06:25PM -0600, Tuowen Zhao wrote:
> > > > > Some BIOS erroneously specifies write-combining BAR for intel-lpss-pci
> > > > > in MTRR. This will cause the system to hang during boot. If possible,
> > > > > this bug could be corrected with a firmware update.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Previous version: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/14/575
> > > > > 
> > > > > Changes from previous version:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  * implement ioremap_uc for sparc64
> > > > >  * split docs changes to not CC stable (doc location moved since 5.3)
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > It forgot to explicitly mention through which tree is supposed to go.
> > > > I think it's MFD one, correct?
> > > 
> > > To be fair, that's not really up to the submitter to decide.
> > 
> > Submitter still can share their view, no?
> 
> Preferences can be voiced, if held, and will always be taken into
> consideration.  The final decision will always be made by the people
> managing the trees.
> 
> The comment above implies a requirement to specify which tree is
> preferred, which is not the case.  In almost all cases, it's best not
> to specify.

In my practice I had been asked several times to specify and express my
understanding which subsystem should take series. It's not so unequivocally.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko