Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2023 09:52:46 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        clang-built-linux <llvm@lists.linux.dev>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        patches@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        shuah@kernel.org, patches@kernelci.org,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, pavel@denx.de, jonathanh@nvidia.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com,
        srw@sladewatkins.net, rwarsow@gmx.de, conor@kernel.org,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Sven Volkinsfeld <thyrc@gmx.net>,
        Daniel Kolesa <daniel@octaforge.org>, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/127] 6.1.45-rc1 review
Message-ID: <20230814165246.GA911700@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
References: <20230809103636.615294317@linuxfoundation.org>
 <CA+G9fYvQdQqTqCgbS4sit_Y2AtKtDiWMOkGZjoeSEFhc=M_jKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <078d6e3d-9572-a624-2c5a-e2d58473e6d0@roeck-us.net>
 <20230811041339.GA193223@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
 <20230813110254.GDZNi4XhHjY4xlNdBJ@fat_crate.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230813110254.GDZNi4XhHjY4xlNdBJ@fat_crate.local>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 01:02:54PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 09:13:39PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > 1911 is still being investigated (some additional eyes on it would not
> > hurt).
> 
> I'm hoping that we can take this one:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230809072200.543939260@infradead.org
> 
> which should resolve this issue, right?

Yes, it does, as least for mainline and 6.4. The backport to 6.1 seems
hairy (due to a lack of call depth tracking me thinks). It may be worth
taking Nick's change there for simplicity's sake but I'll let y'all make
that decision.

Cheers,
Nathan