linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with Linus' and the tip trees

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:   Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:08:20 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with Linus' and the
 tip trees

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> On 16/01/2018 01:55, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 15/01/2018 19:36, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>>> Can KVM folks please stop doing random changes to the cpufeatures code
> >>>> without talking to x86 maintainers and Borislav?
> >>>>
> >>>> This wants to go through TIP or at least reviewed and acked.
> >>> In fact it needs to go through TIP. We spent a lot of effort to make the
> >>> backporting of all this mess simple and this is just shooting a hole in it.
> >>
> >> I do understand why you want this to go through TIP, but I'm not sure
> >> why a change to Processor Tracing is related to PTI or retpolines.  I'm
> >> also not sure why it is a problem for backportability, since we always
> >> try to send pull requests after TIP.  Is it because 7*32+15 will be free
> >> in 4.16 but not earlier?
> > 
> > It is because certain central x86 changes (such as changes to processor flags)
> > are kept on a v4.14 base to keep the PTI backporting efforts manageable.
> > 
> > Please revert (or rebase) this change from the KVM tree, and submit it separately, 
> > as it should have been done to begin with. Please also follow this process in the 
> > future: all x86 changes outside arch/x86/kvm/ need an explicit ack from an x86 
> > maintainer.
> 
> I've always done it like that until
> https://marc.info/?l=kvm&m=149335647027790 got no response for three
> months, then I thought you didn't care.

Well, I certainly cared, but was kaisered enough to not look.

> We will drop Intel PT support and delay it to 4.17.  Luwei, since your
> patches have issues with incorrect use of the MSR bitmap, this is
> probably a good thing anyway (better bisectability).  Please repost your
> patches at the end of the merge window, then we will wait for an ack
> from Thomas/Ingo/Peter.

Can we get all cpu feature bit specific patches now please so we can move
them through TIP?

Thanks,

	tglx