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: <524f23fa-b069-1468-dfc6-fa342c11cb7f@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 15:26:12 +0800
From:   Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        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 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. "

Thanks,
Like Xu