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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTikcYAaxrdRR_i3p5o2tegEVM=0ajuihwu+C5eoK@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:13:28 +0100
From:	Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.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 Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> 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.

But all the patches tagged for -stable are supposed to be already
upstream and therefore well tested.
What am I missing?

Regards,
-- 
Paolo
--
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/