linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/mm: Use IPIs to synchronize LAM enablement

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: <CAJD7tkYa_NuX2_PD1sEn6kE6Q0Z0VCyq2T2HK_Qdj-_94+OG_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:23:48 -0700
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/mm: Use IPIs to synchronize LAM enablement

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:14 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 09:09:30AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > My bad, I lost track of when I sent v1 and saw Kirill's comment when I
> > woke up so I addressed that. FWIW, v1 and v2 are almost identical
> > except for a small change in patch 2 to address Kirill's comment. I
> > will hold off on sending anything else this week.
>
> and while you do, you can have a look at
>
> https://kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/development-process.html

Sure, although I am kinda familiar with that. It would be useful to
point out what part(s) I may be violating :)

>
> And we're in a merge window now so no queueing of new patches for
> 2 weeks unless they're regressions.

Right, I am aware of that part. According to the tip tree handbook I
shouldn't expect them to be handled during the merge window, but do
x86 folks prefer I hold off on sending them until after the merge
window?