From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (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 5DFCA266AB for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 13:59:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725631163; cv=none; b=NxgMOC1NkNiFWwffx0XO3UEHC3dpsvcUn+CpepwcyciM/KztNvkNUpm5BMMwjvgd487otVe26w3TKTmo8fz0N79HqYZyNLPkph1BI2OTvQye859RrMV9J0gahBSTCienQClaU7QoAmgicG1y1uS9CqmM/LCwaDCnNYbKzpRK5+w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725631163; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lyjxRPPBxg+6WCyuIPBD2310UtmLXMiHJgpOFX+F/jI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=NySeXLt0X2pwYW/zDFgm8NSK1hoRMj71Fa1F9IxArllHgM/2OPhX2p++Ewsfj0onACPZS3oOcS8KkERFqGJuvftUsEA0Cl0BzBF3wLonOzGVaRTZY1enkKti0iOLIHdz90DroAJO6qyZaaBthbq+9nkVkVYGuomKKeXyYboMfsQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=04p4uxbb; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=TGNZtEcQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="04p4uxbb"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="TGNZtEcQ" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1725631160; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3pzWBpUMgwR7S025lXojyYJPjbzgL5E0fNEF+GNLZ9s=; b=04p4uxbb3ErlCxtNPcu+a3ZuCKEoTZ4kck7ktCE1n3lMp99pSh7RjE0AUhTC5p9knam6+0 Y23lTwc0vQH62DUIzK7qLlCcwNS1Uh5trSrXC56T94rQfRZobvJMhWIx+H6R9QziVMfaQC MvX9aUEUyJt3+Q8/Ikc5wc/NF4HaOH1UEASKP7Kyd+lF2fXSI0hMXfy/BzTSFhvfVikesT MJKCK33Dserm7GiF7NEEZuCf6iaTrhstUwEa5loa3WBlqdmZNrHqzPl2u9d9gRHn1pkXmW 4uXQYm3oRFC7/2iVult+z6F++wL2D6fcuDhNmpbuUfrDiehCPNpRPFWNLlAqJQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1725631160; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3pzWBpUMgwR7S025lXojyYJPjbzgL5E0fNEF+GNLZ9s=; b=TGNZtEcQaQrxgUrV8xXqBtSu1ut6sGlauhKUkE8mTezly1S757kNuqMTf2YdFPZi/DZkhQ XTm51PCTkz/jaoCw== To: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" , Borislav Petkov , Christian Heusel Cc: Rob , regressions@lists.linux.dev, x86@kernel.org, Joerg Roedel , Tony Luck , LKML , Paul Menzel , Lyude Paul Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/apic: Remove logical destination mode for 64-bit In-Reply-To: References: <8734nvuvrs.ffs@tglx> <87cymyua9j.ffs@tglx> <877cd5u671.ffs@tglx> <87jzgpubxj.ffs@tglx> <20240905140446.GCZtm6fu_H5JH_aP-D@fat_crate.local> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2024 15:59:20 +0200 Message-ID: <87h6asevd3.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Fri, Sep 06 2024 at 10:34, Linux regression tracking wrote: > On 05.09.24 16:04, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?h=x86/apic&id=838ba7733e4e3a94a928e8d0a058de1811a58621 > > Hmmm. Please help me out here: why was that fix queued for -next and not > for this cycle? > > Was that patch when it was committed considered too dangerous for > mainlining this cycle (at this point of the cycle I guess it might)? Yes. > I mean, it's afaics (not totally sure here, the change is missing a Fixes: > tag as well as Closes: tags pointing to the report) fixing a regression > with f0551af02130 that Christian reported (see start of this thread, e.g., > https://lore.kernel.org/all/12df8b45-6100-4c8b-b82a-a6a75bed2e05@heusel.eu/ > ). And f0551af02130 is from v6.9-rc1, so given what Linus wrote in > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wis_qQy4oDNynNKi5b7Qhosmxtoj1jxo5wmB6SRUwQUBQ@mail.gmail.com/ > that fix should likely have been (or still should be?) merged in this > cycle, unless it's really dangerous. > > Or did I misunderstood something here? I really wanted to cook it first. Aside of that f0551af02130 unearthed a firmware bug as the reporters confirmed. So I didn't see an immediate reason to send it to Linus. My rationale for writing the patch was to avoid this issue in the future for those who can't update firmware and have it in the next LTS release, which is what distros will ship in their stable offerings. Thanks, tglx