From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754608AbcAHL4k (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:56:40 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:34096 "EHLO mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752795AbcAHL4h (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:56:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:56:34 +0000 From: Matt Fleming To: Luis Henriques Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Jiri Slaby , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Andy Lutomirski , Kamal Mostafa , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.12 25/91] x86/setup: Extend low identity map to cover whole kernel range Message-ID: <20160108115634.GG2532@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <2c131230744f95abdbecffbf19de6bfa8a889253.1452015822.git.jslaby@suse.cz> <568CF0B8.7090809@redhat.com> <20160106110031.GA2671@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20160106112455.GA14364@ares> <20160106133155.GD2671@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20160106142237.GA16910@ares> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160106142237.GA16910@ares> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 06 Jan, at 02:22:37PM, Luis Henriques wrote: > [ Adding Greg and Kamal ] > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:31:55PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Jan, at 11:24:55AM, Luis Henriques wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 11:00:31AM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: > > > > On Wed, 06 Jan, at 11:47:20AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Without testing the problematic scenario explicitly (32-bit UEFI > > > > > kernel), I think this patch and 26/91 should not be backported to > > > > > kernels that do not have 23a0d4e8fa6d. > > > > > > > > I tend to agree. > > > > > > I can see these 2 commits in kernels as old as 3.10 (which definitely do > > > not include 23a0d4e8fa6d). Does this mean these should be reverted from > > > stable kernels that already include these patches? Or would you rather > > > recommend to backport 23a0d4e8fa6d? > > > > That depends on your appetite for risk ;-) > > > > Heh, I guess stable kernels aren't really about appetite for risk :-) > > > 23a0d4e8fa6d does fix a legitimate bug, albeit one that no one seems > > to have ever hit. Personally, I'd go for backporting 23a0d4e8fa6d. > > This commit doesn't seem to be too bad to backport. I'm attaching 2 > backports: > > - one is for the 3.16 stable kernel, > - the other can be applied to 3.10, 3.12 and 3.13 > > (For the other kernels, I believe 23a0d4e8fa6d will be a clean > cherry-pick.) FWIW they look OK to me.