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: <bb7ae6ed-0666-023c-c956-e5f5956c34ed@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 19:04:43 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] KVM: x86/pmu: Stop adding speculative Intel GP
 PMCs that don't exist yet

On 11/7/22 08:26, Like Xu wrote:
> On 15/10/2022 12:18 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> 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"?
> 
> Oops, I missed this one. "Yes, this should be Cc'd" as I have received a 
> few complaints on this.
> 
> Please let me know if I need to post a new version of this minor patch 
> set, considering the previous
> comment "No need for a v4, the above nits can be handled when applying. "

Queued, thanks.

Paolo