linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: x86: APIC fixes

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: <20141201175505.GA22851@potion.brq.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:55:06 +0100
From:	Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
	Nadav Amit <namit@...technion.ac.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: x86: APIC fixes

2014-12-01 17:22+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 27/11/2014 20:03, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > The interesting one is [3/4], which improves upon a previous CVE fix;
> > we also handle logical destination wrapping in it, so [2/4] does the
> > same for physical;  and to make it nicer, [1/4] removes a condition.
> > [4/4] makes our fast path return true when the message was handled.
> > 
> > Radim Krčmář (4):
> >   KVM: x86: deliver phys lowest-prio
> >   KVM: x86: fix APIC physical destination wrapping
> >   KVM: x86: allow 256 logical x2APICs again
> >   KVM: x86: don't retry hopeless APIC delivery
> > 
> >  arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 20 +++++++++++---------
> >  arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h |  2 --
> >  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> So the order should be 1/2/5/3/4, right?

It would be safer, thank you.

(And when I look at it now, [4/4] would be better as 1st.)
--
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/