linux-kernel - Re: KVM patches applied in weird order in -stable

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2016 03:19:48 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: KVM patches applied in weird order in -stable

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 06:58:40PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 13/09/2016 18:57, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>> > >>  [0] commit 4e422bdd2f84 ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints")
> >>>> > >>  [1] commit 172b2386ed16 ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints")
> >>>> > >>  [2] commit 70e4da7a8ff6 ("KVM: x86: fix root cause for missed hardware breakpoints")
> >>>> > >>
> >>>> > >> but this is the order for linux-4.4.y
> >>>> > >>
> >>>> > >>  [1] commit fc90441e728a ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints")
> >>>> > >>  [2] commit 25e8618619a5 ("KVM: x86: fix root cause for missed hardware breakpoints")
> >>>> > >>  [0] commit 0f6e5e26e68f ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints")
> >>>> > >>
> >>>> > >> The upshot is that KVM_DEBUGREG_RELOAD is always set when returning
> >>>> > >> from kvm_arch_vcpu_load() in stable, but not in Linus' tree.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > How would applying these in a different order cause breakage?
> >> > 
> >> > [2] is reverting [0]+[1].  Stable is not due to the different order.
> > Really?  Are you sure that [0] and [1] isn't just the same commit?  It
> > looks like that to me.
> 
> It is; "git" automatically resolved the conflicts when merging [1], and
> then [2] reverted the change.  In stable, changing the order created a
> different conflict resolution.

Yes, given that I turn them into individual patches, the order I used
was really the only one that would work, and is how this happened :)

thanks,

greg k-h