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: <4D05E518.6040906@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:19:20 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.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 12/13/2010 11:13 AM, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> 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?

They were tested upstream on the upstream code base.  That says nothing 
about 2.6.35 (well, it says something, but not as much as "2.6.35 with 
the patch managed to install and run various tests with several Linux 
and Windows guests, and did not cause regressions in the unit test suite").

-- 
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/