Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:23:45 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by
 kernel parameter
Message-ID: <20191122202345.GC2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1574297603-198156-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <1574297603-198156-7-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <20191121060444.GA55272@gmail.com>
 <20191121130153.GS4097@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20191121171214.GD12042@gmail.com>
 <20191121173444.GA5581@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20191122105141.GY4114@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20191122152715.GA1909@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7F4DD20D@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7F4DD20D@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 06:02:04PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > it requires we get the kernel and firmware clean, but only warns about
> > dodgy userspace, which I really don't think there is much of.
> >
> > getting the kernel clean should be pretty simple.
> 
> Fenghua has a half dozen additional patches (I think they were
> all posted in previous iterations of the patch) that were found by
> code inspection, rather than by actually hitting them.

I thought we merged at least some of that, but maybe my recollection is
faulty.

> Those should go in ahead of this.

Yes, we should make the kernel as clean as possible before doing this.