linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/intel: Fix always false range check in x86

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: <2025072931-recount-stifling-73e8@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:56:56 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Suchit Karunakaran <suchitkarunakaran@...il.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, darwi@...utronix.de,
	sohil.mehta@...el.com, peterz@...radead.org, ravi.bangoria@....com,
	skhan@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/intel: Fix always false range check in x86_vfm
 model matching

On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 12:23:27PM +0530, Suchit Karunakaran wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 at 10:58, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 09:56:21AM +0530, Suchit Karunakaran wrote:
> > > Fix a logic bug in early_init_intel() where a conditional range check:
> > > (c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_P4_PRESCOTT && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_P4_WILLAMETTE)
> > > was always false due to (PRESCOTT) being numerically greater than the
> > > upper bound (WILLAMETTE). This triggers:-Werror=logical-op:
> > > logical ‘and’ of mutually exclusive tests is always false
> > > The fix corrects the constant ordering to ensure the range is valid:
> > > (c->x86_vfm >=  INTEL_P4_PRESCOTT && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_P4_CEDARMILL)
> > >
> > > Fixes: fadb6f569b10 ("x86/cpu/intel: Limit the non-architectural
> > > constant_tsc model checks")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Suchit Karunakaran <suchitkarunakaran@...il.com>
> > >
> > > Changes since v1:
> > > - Fix incorrect logic
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> > > index 076eaa41b8c8..6f5bd5dbc249 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> > > @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ static void early_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > >       if (c->x86_power & (1 << 8)) {
> > >               set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC);
> > >               set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC);
> > > -     } else if ((c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_P4_PRESCOTT && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_P4_WILLAMETTE) ||
> > > +     } else if ((c->x86_vfm >=  INTEL_P4_PRESCOTT && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_P4_CEDARMILL) ||
> > >                  (c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_CORE_YONAH  && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_IVYBRIDGE)) {
> > >               set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC);
> > >       }
> > > --
> > > 2.50.1
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
> > a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
> > to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> > writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> > created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> > in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> > kernel tree.
> >
> > You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> > as indicated below:
> >
> > - You have marked a patch with a "Fixes:" tag for a commit that is in an
> >   older released kernel, yet you do not have a cc: stable line in the
> >   signed-off-by area at all, which means that the patch will not be
> >   applied to any older kernel releases.  To properly fix this, please
> >   follow the documented rules in the
> >   Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file for how to resolve
> >   this.
> >
> > If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> > how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> > Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> > from other developers.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h's patch email bot
> 
> Hi Greg,
> I've a question regarding backporting this fix. Can this fix be
> backported to stable kernel version 6.15.8? Also, should I send the
> backport patch only after the initial patch has been merged in
> mainline or linux-next?

Did you read the document that my bot linked to above?  It should answer
those questions :)

thanks,

greg k-h