Re: [patch] Fix up l1ft documentation was Re: Taking a break - time to look back

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: corbet@lwn.net, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix up l1ft documentation was Re: Taking a break - time to look back
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:18:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190828221824.GB24056@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903120633000.1985@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1696 bytes --]

Hi!

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Mon 2019-03-11 23:31:08, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Calling this a lie is a completly unjustified personal attack on those who
> > 
> > So how should it be called? I initally used less strong words, only to
> > get "Care to tell what's a lie instead of making bold statements?"
> > back. Also look at the timing of the thread.
> 
> You called it a lie from the very beginning or what do you think made me
> tell you that? Here is what you said:

Actually, I still call it a lie. Document clearly says that bug is
fixed in non-virtualized cases, when in fact it depends on PAE and
limited memory.

> If you want to provide more accurate documentation then you better come up
> with something which is helpful instead of completely useless blurb like
> the below:

At this point I want you to fix it yourself. Lying about security bugs
being fixed when they are not is not cool. I tried to be helpful and
submit a patch, but I don't feel like you are cooperating on getting
the patch applied.

> > +   Mitigation is present in kernels v4.19 and newer, and in
> > +   recent -stable kernels. PAE needs to be enabled for mitigation to
> > +   work.
> 
> No. The mitigation is available when the kernel provides it. Numbers are
> irrelevant because that documentation has to be applicable for stable
> kernels as well. And what is a recent -stable kernel?
> 
> Also the PAE part needs to go to a completely different section.

Best regards,
								Pavel

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]