linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] hwmon: (coretemp) Replace 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: <fa0f4052-22cd-47cc-95ea-ffe1c3a5a52a@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 14:51:37 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
 Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
 Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
 Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] hwmon: (coretemp) Replace x86_model checks with VFM
 ones

On 8/28/25 14:45, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> On 8/28/2025 2:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
...
> Dave has provided his signoff on the patch now. Also, he suggested
> including a Cc: stable.

Let's just wait until Guenter sends it upstream. Once it hits Linus's
tree, you can ask for it to be in stable if we decide it's a good idea.

I asked if it was necessary because I'm not positive it's a good idea.

For instance, if the model numbers in play were all >100 and Intel has
zero plans to introduce a family 18/19, model >100, then it might not be
worth it. Or, if the only downside is a single warning on dmesg, it
might not be worth it.

But, if it's going to spew warnings constantly or set your brand new
machine ablaze, then maybe it's worth backporting.

So, let's actually look at what it would mean in practice to have it hit
stable@ or not. Just spent 10 minutes looking at it.