linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] Enhance PAT init to fix Xorg crashes

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAB=NE6V2BOfkM5B8E+YULqrjqh_QaXOtBgyqpvBoku-73N4X-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:10:29 -0700
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>, lkp@...1.01.org,
	"Hao, Xudong" <xudong.hao@...el.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Olaf Hering <ohering@...e.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@...e.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, elliott@....com,
	Charles Arnold <carnold@...e.com>,
	Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	Mike Latimer <mlatimer@...e.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@....org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] Enhance PAT init to fix Xorg crashes

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
<konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:02:13AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 10:46 -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> >> On 03/29/2016 10:19 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 12:34 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > > I'd appreciate if someone can test this patch-set on Xen to verify
>> >> > > > that there is no change in "x86/PAT: Configuration [0-7] .."
>> >> > > > message in dmesg.
>> >> > > So I don't have a Xen setup, but hopefully such testing will happen
>> >> > > once these changes show up in linux-next, tomorrow or so.
>> >> > I will address if any issue is found in testing.
>> >>
>> >> I ran a subset of out nightly test. Nobody died.
>> >>
>> >> So this all looks good. (It actually may have also fixed another bug
>> >> that was reported recently by Olaf, copied here)
>> >
>> > Cool! Thanks Boris!
>>
>> Hoping Boris or someone on the Xen front would test this prior to
>> merging helps but it also slows us down, a while ago we discussed the
>
> Boris did test it _before_ it was merged.

Yes, my point being that we should not need Boris to test collateral
Xen patches.

>> possibility of getting Linux Xen guests automatically tested as part
>> of 0-day, this way then when a developer (in this case Toshi) pushes
>> to his own tree, he'd be able to just sit and wait for the results,
>> without having to hope Boris or someone goes out and tests.
>
> In Fedora you just need to do:
>
> #yum install xen
> #reboot
> And pick the Xen option.
>
> Probably the same thing with Debian and Ubuntu - just 'apt-get install xen'

We can't expect everyone to do that.

>> Its a major undertaking to get Linux Xen guests boot strapped into 0-day,
>
> It is?

If its really trivial then you give me the impression you can help
with its integration. 0-day is open after all.

>> however such prospects were raised a while ago and it seems we
>> may be able to get there. Just wanted to send a reminder about this
>> possibility, and highlight this patch set as an ideal candidate where
>> a proactive test could have helped as well. I proactively caught the
>> original Xen issue, but git logs shows we are not doing so great in
>> this area, so any help on the Xen side as well to help with 0-day
>> integration would be appreciated.
>>
>> I'll follow up on another thread on that.
>
> Sure. It never hurts to have more coverage.

Great.

  Luis