From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6BEE1D5AD6; Wed, 25 Sep 2024 19:45:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.19 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727293527; cv=none; b=qZYf302HvebSHkRMF7OrJCnVOd+WFpIeGsiM0amq+TP9uMv1W06w+7bQDdVxNJfPlGwrihgztugOXeAS0HqMmbzoC+bbzXxdGITy9fZ4OsNu+GOYwEF+GZikwqE7DvCS0vBY6WcP/S9x//rbrpvgHbaEu4Q6rIDuE393V+U/080= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727293527; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xYRWbpv879xE3PMgRkyZQKkj1xwpFjw7PCHc84DbX0c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Oyd2pQOBcTN6r3HCywJdozrBGgmQ+/LOYh+A4lx7Xc/6u4kfyFT76G31pfqGkt35nh4kYUWCZ/X90xbMVpK3qDUkAtzIXKFWvtTMnVq+7EbLHRV12mXnwAxWi5R1YXgf6estRs+4quYltnE5MUKj9byhciMiXzdCIKlVI8tgmGM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=FlXDPWbC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.19 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="FlXDPWbC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1727293526; x=1758829526; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=xYRWbpv879xE3PMgRkyZQKkj1xwpFjw7PCHc84DbX0c=; b=FlXDPWbCgF6r/5z3oAlwA9fDEyfjoz6lzpWVZIIqkX8so3LGvqGQO//9 l3Fasr1ioggvaD9Wcmtn2Ywj+SW57fox1iXM6nHI+mHcvS5SWWv0XR13/ Yoqjj5mKwE5ZqvDw6YtHUP1CUXSs0wIxrE06lVYKrPCZ4lCpDMAKQpsvz Zhscu717D+gcZjzQxU0/sSkCyAXtTKDBFF+YOdTbsVo2TafQ+AkdW7mCz 0h0rfijoMZThlC9rpupr9rMhPEoAtG0GO+VndQgeuRHjkygCkxXJmmGIL q21qqjEWyATZRMD0NWCWsrw4CpC0c2tah8lLK2REx+O1cqlopSN2dMOfj w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: HwMZwlfATOqCg933tO8vkA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: BeeEX4EdSCy1CTG89vD8uw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11206"; a="26236304" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,258,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="26236304" Received: from fmviesa008.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.148]) by orvoesa111.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Sep 2024 12:45:26 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 20uqWXZ4SLO7NwKjoGC72g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: IL1/F/aBQR+QjEqsv7yVOQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,258,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="72026506" Received: from ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com ([172.25.110.23]) by fmviesa008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Sep 2024 12:45:25 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 12:51:02 -0700 From: Ricardo Neri To: "Zhang, Rui" Cc: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "regressions@leemhuis.info" , "Neri, Ricardo" , "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" , "bp@alien8.de" , "Gupta, Pawan Kumar" , "regressions@lists.linux.dev" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Luck, Tony" , "thomas.lindroth@gmail.com" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [STABLE REGRESSION] Possible missing backport of x86_match_cpu() change in v6.1.96 Message-ID: <20240925195102.GA17227@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> References: <2024081217-putt-conform-4b53@gregkh> <05ced22b5b68e338795c8937abb8141d9fa188e6.camel@intel.com> <2024091900-unimpeded-catalyst-b09f@gregkh> <20240924024551.GA13538@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 05:20:41AM +0000, Zhang, Rui wrote: > > > > > > If so, can you submit the needed backports for us to apply?  That's > > > the > > > easiest way for us to take them, thanks. > > > > I audited all the uses of x86_match_cpu(match). All callers that > > construct > > the `match` argument using the family of X86_MATCH_* macros from > > arch/x86/ > > include/asm/cpu_device_id.h function correctly because the commit B > > has > > been backported to v6.1.99 and to v6.6.50 -- 93022482b294 ("x86/cpu: > > Fix > > x86_match_cpu() to match just X86_VENDOR_INTEL"). > > > > Only those callers that use their own thing to compose the `match` > > argument > > are buggy: > >     * arch/x86/mm/init.c > >     * drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_msr.c (only in 6.1.99) > > Thanks for auditing this. I overlooked the intel_rapl driver case. > > > > Summarizing, v6.1.99 needs these two commits from mainline > >     * d05b5e0baf42 ("powercap: RAPL: fix invalid initialization for > >       pl4_supported field") > >     * 2eda374e883a ("x86/mm: Switch to new Intel CPU model defines") > > > > v6.6.50 only needs the second commit. > > Well, commit B 93022482b294 ("x86/cpu: Fix x86_match_cpu() to match > just X86_VENDOR_INTEL") is backported to all stable kernels. And the > above two broken cases are also there. > > So I suppose we need to backport all of them to 5.x stable kernel as > well. Indeed, this the case. It has been backported to v5.15.y and v5.10.y, but not to v5.4.y nor 4.19.y. I found one more case in those two v5.x versions. I will post the backports.