On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 04:40:16PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote: > As discussed in a parallel thread [1], the incorrect code here doesn't have > any real impact in already released Linux kernels. It only affects the > transition that my patch series implements to change the way vTOM > is handled. Are you sure? PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK is controlled by __PHYSICAL_MASK which is determined by CONFIG_DYNAMIC_PHYSICAL_MASK and __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT which all differ depending on configurations and also dynamic. It is probably still ok, in probably all possible cases even though I wouldn't bet on it. And this fix is simple and all clear so lemme ask it differently: what would be any downsides in backporting it to stable, just in case? > I don't know what the tradeoffs are for backporting a fix that doesn't solve > a real problem vs. just letting it be. Every backport carries some overhead > in the process Have you seen the deluge of stable fixes? :-) > and there's always a non-zero risk of breaking something. I don't see how this one would cause any breakage... > I've leaned away from adding the "Fixes:" tag in such cases. But if > it's better to go ahead and add the "Fixes:" tag for what's only a > theoretical problem, I'm OK with doing so. I think this is a good to have fix anyway as it is Obviously Correct(tm). Unless you have any reservations you haven't shared yet... > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/11/11/1348 Btw, the proper way to reference to a mail message now is simply to do: https://lore.kernel.org/r/<Message-ID> as long as it has been posted on some ML which lore archives. And I think it archives all. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
