linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] KVM: x86/pmu: Stop adding speculative Intel GP PMCs that don't exist yet

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: <Y0mL3g2Eamp4bMHD@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Oct 2022 16:18:38 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] KVM: x86/pmu: Stop adding speculative Intel GP
 PMCs that don't exist yet

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022, Like Xu wrote:
> On 8/10/2022 3:38 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Does this need Cc:stable@...r.kernel.org?  Or is this benign enough that we don't
> > care?
> 
> Considering stable kernel may access IA32_OVERCLOCKING_STATUS as well,
> cc stable list helps to remove the illusion of pmu msr scope for stable tree
> maintainers.

Is that a "yes, this should be Cc'd stable" or "no, don't bother"?