[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZkzCUj7zCcGPT-IX@agluck-desk3.sc.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 08:48:34 -0700
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/49] x86/cpu: Fix x86_match_cpu() to match just
X86_VENDOR_INTEL
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 09:49:47AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 03:45:33PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> > Fixes: 644e9cbbe3fc ("Add driver auto probing for x86 features v4")
>
> Do you really want to backport this to everything since 2012, as that
> patch is from then?
I didn't include a Cc: stable. Is there some better way to report
the source commit for a problem without triggering a backport?
>
> > @@ -690,6 +690,7 @@ struct x86_cpu_id {
> > __u16 model;
> > __u16 steppings;
> > __u16 feature; /* bit index */
> > + __u16 flags;
> > kernel_ulong_t driver_data;
> > };
> >
> > @@ -700,6 +701,9 @@ struct x86_cpu_id {
> > #define X86_STEPPING_ANY 0
> > #define X86_FEATURE_ANY 0 /* Same as FPU, you can't test for that */
> >
> > +/* x86_cpu_id::flags */
> > +#define X86_CPU_ID_FLAG_ENTRY_VALID BIT(0)
>
> I would definitely not want to have those visible in userspace.
>
> IOW, something like this:
Agreed. Looks better to keep the define out of a <linux/*.h> file.
Do you want me to spin a new patch? Or can you fold your change into
my patch when applying?
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists