linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86: make pat and mtrr independent from each other

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: <8d148826-62a5-95f9-8662-be14f56a6336@netscape.net>
Date:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:17:14 -0400
From:   Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@...scape.net>
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
Cc:     jbeulich@...e.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        regressions@...ts.linux.dev, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86: make pat and mtrr independent from each other

On 8/15/2022 2:00 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi Chuck!
>
> On 15.08.22 18:56, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > 
> > I am forwarding this to you to help you cut through the noise.
>
> Sorry for not replying earlier, I ignored this thread and all other
> non-urgent mail in the past two weeks: I was on vacation until a few
> days ago and when I came home I had to deal with some other stuff first.
>
> > I do not apologize for trying to get
> > the fix for this regression rolling again.
>
> Yeah, it's important to ensure regressions don't simply fall though the
> cracks, but my advice in this case: let things rest for a few days now,

Actually, I was planning on letting things rest for another two weeks, so I am
totally in agreement with you here.

> the right people have the issue on their radar again; give them time to
> breath and work out a solution: it's not something that can be fixed
> easily within a few minutes by one person alone, as previous discussions
> have shown (also keep in mind that the merge window was open until
> yesterday, which keeps many maintainers quite busy).
>
> And FWIW: I've seen indicators that a solution to resolve this is
> hopefully pretty close now.

That's good to know. But I must ask, can you provide a link to a public
discussion that indicates a fix is close? Or do you know a fix is close
because of private discussions? That distinction is important to me
because open source software is much less useful to me if the solutions
to problems are not discussed openly (except, of course, for solutions
to security vulnerabilities that are not yet public).

>
> >  After all, it has been over three months
> > since the regression was first reported.
>
> Yes, things take/took to long, as a few things were far from ideal how
> this regression was dealt with. But that happens sometimes, we're all
> just humans and make errors. I did a few as well and learned a thing or
> two from then. Due to that I'll do a few things slightly different in
> the future to hopefully get similar situations resolved a lot quicker in
> the future.
>
> Ciao, Thorsten

Thanks for your quick reply and best regards,

Chuck