linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] SRF: Fix offline CPU preventing pc6 entry

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fbdaf69ec121836db4d4611842bd0c1b93224bf6.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 18:50:41 +0200
From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Patryk Wlazlyn
	 <patryk.wlazlyn@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, 
 rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, len.brown@...el.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] SRF: Fix offline CPU preventing pc6 entry

On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 08:07 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/10/25 07:26, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > I noticed there are no Fixes: or Cc:stable@ tags on this. Should we be
> > > treating this like a new feature or a bug fix?
> > It would be very helpful to have this in v6.12, because it is LTS. So I
> > would
> > suggest
> > 
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v6.12
> 
> I was _kinda_ hoping to hear how this affects users.
> 
> Is this a big deal for real users out in the field today?

Not a big deal. Most SRF users should have a BIOS with the workaround by now.

>  Or is this for
> some theoretical savings of 0.2% of battery life for a platform that's
> coming out in 2029?

If I interpret this question as "what is your motivation precisely", I would
answer this way:

* Because version 6.12 is LTS, there is a good chance that users of near-future
new platforms will run 6.12 on them.
* If a near-future platform happens to miss the firmware workaround for this
issue, having these patches in 6.12 will likely mean that most users are OK.

No other motivation.

Overall, I would categorize back-porting this patch-set to 6.12 as "nice to
have".

Thank you!