[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20241029182306.04c3451808c8b76e5e96fdb4@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 18:23:06 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.lendacky@....com,
dyoung@...hat.com, daniel.kiper@...cle.com, noodles@...com,
lijiang@...hat.com, kexec@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] x86/mm/sme: fix the kdump kernel breakage on SME
system when CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC=y
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 16:16:13 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com> wrote:
> Currently, distros like Fedora/RHEL have enabled CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC by
> default. This makes kexec/kdump kernel always fail to boot up on SME
> platform because of a code bug. By debugging, the root cause is found
> out and bug is fixed with this patchset.
[1/1] is a cleanup. [2/2] fixes a bug which appears to go all the way
back to 5.10. The bugfix patch has a dependency on the cleanup, which
is unfortunate.
We could add the Fixes: to [1/1] and add cc:stable to both patches so
they get backported into -stable kernels together. But I think it's
nicer to just concentrate on the single bugfix patch (with Fixes: and
cc:stable) and do the cleanup later, in the usual fashion.
So can I suggest a resend please?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists