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 11:16:51 +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 11:12 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.

-- 
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/