linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [104/223] KVM: Write protect memory after slot swap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:08:11 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
CC:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, mst@...hat.com, gregkh@...e.de,
	ak@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [104/223] KVM: Write protect memory after slot swap

On 12/13/2010 06:56 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Avi Kivity<avi@...hat.com>  wrote:
> >  On 12/13/2010 11:12 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>
> >>  >    - Greg rejects kvm patches (but not virtio etc) pointing submitters
> >>  >    to the kvm maintainers
> >>  >    - The kvm maintainers collect stable kvm patches and autotest them
> >>
> >>  As I understand this patch came in this way for .36
> >>  (I took it from .36-stable)
> >
> >  The patch was autotested for .36-stable, it wasn't autotested for
> >  .35-stable.  It will very likely work (this isn't code that changes a lot),
> >  but still.
> >
> >>  >    - They then submit the patches to stable@
> >>
> >>  Do you want to do the autotest explicitely for .35 too and no automatic
> >>  backports and do the same procedure as for newer kernels?
> >>
> >>  I can do that, but you would need to do it for a long time.
> >
> >  Yes.  In fact it gets more important as time goes by, since as time goes by
> >  patches are more likely to cause regressions due to changes in the code
> >  base.
>
> My workflow is largely the same as Andi's -- in that I'm using patches that
> have already been nominated for other stable releases and putting them
> on the 34-lt (longterm) as appropriate.  Are you interested in also doing the
> same thing for 34-lt (i.e. you generating a 34 specific, pre-tested patchset
> instead of me doing the backports from other stable trees?)

Wait, there's a 34-lt too?

I'd like to have all stable kvms pass some minimum acceptance test, but 
that's quiet a lot of trees to maintain.  Why do we have to have both 
34-lt and 35-lt?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/