From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:54964 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752043AbcAFLZA (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:25:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:24:55 +0000 From: Luis Henriques To: Matt Fleming 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.12 25/91] x86/setup: Extend low identity map to cover whole kernel range Message-ID: <20160106112455.GA14364@ares> References: <2c131230744f95abdbecffbf19de6bfa8a889253.1452015822.git.jslaby@suse.cz> <568CF0B8.7090809@redhat.com> <20160106110031.GA2671@codeblueprint.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20160106110031.GA2671@codeblueprint.co.uk> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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? Cheers, -- Lu�s