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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4D05E2A5.8070204@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:08:53 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	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 11:03 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >  On 12/13/2010 10:58 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>  >   On 12/13/2010 01:46 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>  >>   2.6.35-longterm review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please
> >>  let
> >>  >>   me know.
> >>  >>
> >>  >
> >>  >   The way kvm stable updates work, Marcelo and I collect the patches,
> >>  >   autotest them, and submit them to the stable maintainers.  This way
> >>  the
> >>  >   first stable users don't get to be the first ones to actually test
> >>  the
> >>  >   new fixes.
> >>
> >>  This should be the (nearly) end point of this process for 2.6.35.
> >
> >  Sorry, I don't follow.  Please elaborate.
>
> People submit the patches to stable@...nel.org
> Greg collects them for his stable and long term kernels.
> I pick them up them for 2.6.35-longterm. Others for their longterm
> kernels.
>
> Then after some time the collected patches get posted for the 48hour
> review period, as described in the stable rules. That is what you
> saw here. After that they get released.
>
> If you have any objections to this particular patch please let me
> know.

I don't have an objection to the patch, rather to the methodology where 
stable kernels are more or less totally untested.  I would like at least 
the kvm part to see some testing before it sees users.  The process we 
worked out with Greg is:

- Greg rejects kvm patches (but not virtio etc) pointing submitters to 
the kvm maintainers
- The kvm maintainers collect stable kvm patches and autotest them
- They then submit the patches to stable@

The process is slower than the standard stable process but results in 
something that is less likely to fail.

-- 
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/