linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 35/47] x86/irq: Seperate unused system vectors from spurious entry again

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: <14968c46-ad8f-fbdf-88d6-0ded954534c9@canonical.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:59:00 -0300
From:   "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...onical.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     jan.kiszka@...mens.com, jbeulich@...e.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <kernel@...ccoli.net>,
        pedro.principeza@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 35/47] x86/irq: Seperate unused system vectors from
 spurious entry again

On 17/08/2020 13:49, Greg KH wrote:
> [...]
>> I'm sorry, I hoped the subject + thread would suffice heh
> 
> There is no thread here :(
> 

Wow, that's odd. I've sent with In-Reply-To, I'd expect it'd get
threaded with the original message. Looking in lore archive [1], it
seems my first message wasn't threaded but the others were...apologies
for that, not sure what happened...

>> So, the mainline commit is: f8a8fe61fec8 ("x86/irq: Seperate unused
>> system vectors from spurious entry again") [0]. The backport to 4.19
>> stable tree has the following id: fc6975ee932b .
> 
> Wow, over 1 1/2 years old, can you remember individual patches that long
> ago?
> 
> Anyway, did you try to backport the patch to older kernels to see if it
> was possible and could work?
> 
> If so, great, please feel free to submit it to the
> stable@...r.kernel.org list and I will be glad to pick it up.
> 

I'm working on it, it is feasible. But I'm seeking here, in this
message, what is the reason it wasn't backported for pre-4.19 - is there
anything on these patches that is known to break old kernels? I'll
certainly submit my backported patch to stable 4.14 once I'm sure it's
working and there's no specific reason to not have it done before.

Thanks again!

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/stable/a2788632-5690-932b-90de-14bd9cabedec@canonical.com/T/#mf0b26d5a7ff880cfd63bcda80136296275d3682e