linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 02/49] x86/cpu: Fix x86_match_cpu() to match just X86_VENDOR

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]

Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 19:18:56 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
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 08:48:34AM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> I didn't include a Cc: stable. Is there some better way to report
> the source commit for a problem without triggering a backport?

Looking at:

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst

I guess this:

"There furthermore is a variant of the stable tag you can use to make the stable
team's backporting tools (e.g AUTOSEL or scripts that look for commits
containing a 'Fixes:' tag) ignore a change::

     Cc: <stable+noautosel@...nel.org> # reason goes here, and must be present"

Might want to explain in that reason there what the situation is and
that this patch should be backported only when the SNC change is in the
tree or so, yadda yadda.

Or the crypto one - your patch 1 in this thread.

> 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?

Nah, I can fold everything in.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette