From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout-p-202.mailbox.org (mout-p-202.mailbox.org [80.241.56.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8432208B6 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2024 10:49:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713005369; cv=none; b=NBKbCq4P3bzBV0vQIE9yYfjDuFg1buyOF47YmCb4eloELG5DBJTuNT0WIHYTW4UzwHl9olR+q991vcv6KRopaueLZxgQYWbTHln0Ed3SDyoRyF6CK846zP7tvAEynzS/65K7ebOCELNlfGjyU9n2M5s2GbVeRWaoDY8ybUdX4QI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713005369; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8ikedhSJn26YGGIQUYARbenr5fQ6p+qp34A7xNOjONo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=CEEljWQQXPo5sJcGzDY/e9NmPpR5wUCcLIcXhDnfQWkNw5PiP+V2ASr2/htnxw1AHmWY0ICztz89hsld17q9e7HCSeOVVtsKhYiWLEkFS+pW7tUmC0DU5WP0YzD4pTqa+NfJQR7XU+6Akt/9jZtw8ajSvvGNCVik8fiiyfrYHZk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b=pxpgdLKO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b="pxpgdLKO" Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-202.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4VGqtk0Ylmz9sTJ; Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:49:18 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailbox.org; s=mail20150812; t=1713005358; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wRGrx20qaxTfTav8oY1WT1NLMhax9e4c1ieS3RFQnwU=; b=pxpgdLKOYYVsr4/b3ezC7BU4ALFnYptXwo5EnikVmvVRywnQJUJXsNsj/sQ3BFM2ggg9Fc zpp6ls4XvbqvIUtPc+Pqtro8P67Nm6o3Yeo3KdXFMy2jf1QZt0QZWuU5rJUp9rjwiiGRj+ 02Y1zV/ANmRK+mtDH/OtSNMFxAD1N7z6D9cO3s0AEVzmYjRK4o3suI76065mEMXWr2qHQr VuTkTUERVCG+GqMi+RKYnuF4hv+orhitWDHpE8EuosXSCTjqrYpkef3c+dat+HFIWrC4sP QXMn0P0/1VQXjKMKtTk23fB3wbWBVf7KXgiugJjhk2FTv5lNpB3e7cdizpkOvw== Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:49:01 +0200 From: Erhard Furtner To: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" Cc: Linux regressions mailing list , Bagas Sanjaya , x86@kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , jpoimboe@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , Peter Zijlstra , Breno Leitao Subject: Re: [bisected] Kernel v6.9-rc3 fails to boot on a Thinkpad T60 with MITIGATION_RETHUNK=y (regression from v6.8.5) Message-ID: <20240413124901.7f1a8e51@yea> In-Reply-To: <68e3503c-5573-4d82-8fb0-5b955c212d67@leemhuis.info> References: <20240413024956.488d474e@yea> <68e3503c-5573-4d82-8fb0-5b955c212d67@leemhuis.info> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MBO-RS-META: k3ssgyup1b4oybo1zmrkgh8m4j9pf3bb X-MBO-RS-ID: e16be028c3858998bcc On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 11:46:09 +0200 "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" wrote: > On 13.04.24 11:19, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > > There was an earlier report about this here: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/78e0d19c-b77a-4169-a80f-2eef91f4a1d6@gmail.com/ > > Boris there suggested: "perhaps we should make > CONFIG_MITIGATION_RETHUNK depend on !X86_32": > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240403173059.GJZg2SUwS8MXw7CdwF@fat_crate.local/ > > But that did not happen afaics. Would it be wise to go down that path? > > Ciao, Thorsten Ah I see. Well in my case it's no old P4 heater but a not that ancient T2400 Intel Core Duo with 31W TDP. ;) But good to hear I would not need CONFIG_MITIGATION_RETHUNK anyhow? If that's the case depending on !X86_32 would make sense. Don't know whether the 32bit Intel Atoms (the only 'recent' X86_32 CPU left besides the Core Duo) would need this mitigation. Regards, Erhard