linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] x86/cpu: Add INTEL_LUNARLAKE_M to X86_BUG

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: <95c5a803-efac-4d90-b451-4c6ec298bdb7@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 12:21:13 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
 x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/cpu: Add INTEL_LUNARLAKE_M to X86_BUG_MONITOR

On 11/20/24 12:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219364
>>>
>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 6.11
>>> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
>> This obviously conflicts with the VFM infrastructure, but shouldn't this
>> also get backported to even older stable kernels?
> As a matter of principle, it should go to all of the stable kernel
> series still in use, but it obviously needs backporting and I'm not
> really sure how attractive the old kernel series will be for LNL users
> (quite likely not at all).

I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but as a policy, I think we should
backport CPU fixes to all the stable kernels. I don't feel like I have a
good enough handle on what kernels folks run on new systems to make a
prediction.