The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.18-stable tree.
I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to stable@vger.kernel.org and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From d806afa495e2e2a1a726e26c5e44f27818e804c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Yi Wang wang.yi59@zte.com.cn Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 13:42:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] x86/kvm/vmx: Fix coding style in vmx_setup_l1d_flush()
Substitute spaces with tab. No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Yi Wang wang.yi59@zte.com.cn Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao jiang.biao2@zte.com.cn Message-Id: 1534398159-48509-1-git-send-email-wang.yi59@zte.com.cn Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # L1TF Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonzini@redhat.com
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c index 1519f030fd73..31e90e83fdd6 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c @@ -219,15 +219,15 @@ static int vmx_setup_l1d_flush(enum vmx_l1d_flush_state l1tf) return 0; }
- if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES)) { - u64 msr; - - rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES, msr); - if (msr & ARCH_CAP_SKIP_VMENTRY_L1DFLUSH) { - l1tf_vmx_mitigation = VMENTER_L1D_FLUSH_NOT_REQUIRED; - return 0; - } - } + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES)) { + u64 msr; + + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES, msr); + if (msr & ARCH_CAP_SKIP_VMENTRY_L1DFLUSH) { + l1tf_vmx_mitigation = VMENTER_L1D_FLUSH_NOT_REQUIRED; + return 0; + } + }
/* If set to auto use the default l1tf mitigation method */ if (l1tf == VMENTER_L1D_FLUSH_AUTO) {
On 01/09/2018 23:23, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.18-stable tree.
I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to stable@vger.kernel.org and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.
Since the L1TF patches are still seeing a little churn, I submitted all of them for stable, in order to avoid future conflicts.
Paolo
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:08:26PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/09/2018 23:23, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.18-stable tree.
I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to stable@vger.kernel.org and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.
Since the L1TF patches are still seeing a little churn, I submitted all of them for stable, in order to avoid future conflicts.
I don't understand. Was this patch needed for something else? Or is it already merged?
Totally confused,
greg k-h
On 10/09/2018 15:38, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:08:26PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/09/2018 23:23, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.18-stable tree.
I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to stable@vger.kernel.org and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.
Since the L1TF patches are still seeing a little churn, I submitted all of them for stable, in order to avoid future conflicts.
I don't understand. Was this patch needed for something else? Or is it already merged?
Totally confused,
This patch was the very last in the series. I didn't leave it out, just in case something else comes later on top. We're backporting 100 or so patches anyway...
Paolo
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org