linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH stable] x86/microcode: do not cache microcode if it will not be used

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2024011712-stipend-arena-aeb3@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:08:29 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH stable] x86/microcode: do not cache microcode if it will
 not be used

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:57:40PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:00 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 09:59:23PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 7:35 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 11:22:02AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > > > [ Upstream commit a7939f01672034a58ad3fdbce69bb6c665ce0024 ]
> > > > >
> > > > > This really isn't this commit id, sorry.
> > > >
> > > > True, that's the point of the mainline kernel where the logic most
> > > > closely resembles the patch. stable-kernel-rules.rst does not quite
> > > > say what to do in this case.
> > >
> > > Ok, then just say, "this is not upstream" and the rest of your changelog
> > > is good.  I'll edit it up tomorrow and apply it, thanks.
> >
> > Ok, now queued up for 6.6.y, but what about older kernel versions?
> 
> 6.6 is where I tested that it works, and I didn't want to put an old
> kernel version in the "Cc" line, without even testing that a
> non-upstream patch applies there.
> 
> The benefit would be absolutely marginal. People playing with Intel
> TDX are not going to use old kernels (6.1 counts as old) anyway, for
> example support for lazy acceptance of memory went into 6.5.

Fair enough, thanks for the explaination, I'll leave it alone then.

greg k-h