From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 11:45 AM > > 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? None > > > 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... > No reservations. I'll add the "Fixes:" tag. Michael
