linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] x86/sme: Use percpu boolean to control wbinvd during kexec

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: <4b752f2bd492be6deaa681f04303cdb57d2a3c91.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 00:39:55 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
	"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>, "peterz@...radead.org"
	<peterz@...radead.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "mingo@...hat.com"
	<mingo@...hat.com>, "thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "x86@...nel.org"
	<x86@...nel.org>, "sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>, "Chatre, Reinette"
	<reinette.chatre@...el.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com"
	<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, "Williams, Dan J"
	<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "Yamahata, Isaku"
	<isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, "ashish.kalra@....com" <ashish.kalra@....com>,
	"nik.borisov@...e.com" <nik.borisov@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] x86/sme: Use percpu boolean to control wbinvd
 during kexec

On Fri, 2025-06-27 at 00:37 +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > Arguably the supported/enabled part could be moved to a separate earlier
> > patch.
> > The code change would just get immediately replaced, but the benefit would
> > be
> > that a bisect would show which part of the change was responsible.
> 
> I am not a fan of splitting the new variable and the user into different
> patches, as long as the patch isn't too big to review.  You need to review
> them together anyway I think, so arguably putting them together is easier to
> review.

How about if Tom thinks there is any risk, we can split them for bisectability
help. Otherwise reduce the churn.