On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 15:06, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/27/21 12:04 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote: > > > > > > On 10/27/21 11:59 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 18:56, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 05:14:35PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >>>> I could take it, but since it will ultimately go through -tip anyway, > >>>> perhaps better if they just take it directly? (This will change after > >>>> the next -rc1 though) > >>>> > >>>> Boris? > >>> > >>> Yeah, I'm being told this is not urgent enough to rush in now so you > >>> could queue it into your fixes branch for 5.16 once -rc1 is out and send > >>> it to Linus then. The stable tag is just so it gets backported to the > >>> respective trees. > >>> > >>> But if you prefer I should take it, then I can queue it after -rc1. > >>> It'll boil down to the same thing though. > >>> > >> > >> No, in that case, I can take it myself. > >> > >> Tom, does that work for you? > > > > Yup, that works for me. Thanks guys! > > I don't see this in any tree yet, so just a gentle reminder in case it > dropped off the radar. > Apologies for the delay, I've pushed this out to -next now. Before I send it to Linus, can you please confirm (for my peace of mind) how this only affects systems that have memory encryption available and enabled in the first place?
