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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:57:04 +0200 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: KVM patches applied in weird order in -stable On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 13/09/2016 16:58, Greg KH wrote: > > [adding stable@ as this is a stable issue, not a 'normal' issue] > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 03:51:00PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > >> Folks, > >> > >> While hunting down a performance issue involving KVM I was surprised > >> to see "native_set_debugreg()" as the first entry in `perf top`. > >> > >> Digging deeper, it looks as though the following patches were applied > >> in the wrong order in -stable. This is the order as they appear in > >> Linus' tree, > >> > >> [0] commit 4e422bdd2f84 ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints") > >> [1] commit 172b2386ed16 ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints") > >> [2] commit 70e4da7a8ff6 ("KVM: x86: fix root cause for missed hardware breakpoints") > >> > >> but this is the order for linux-4.4.y > >> > >> [1] commit fc90441e728a ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints") > >> [2] commit 25e8618619a5 ("KVM: x86: fix root cause for missed hardware breakpoints") > >> [0] commit 0f6e5e26e68f ("KVM: x86: fix missed hardware breakpoints") > >> > >> The upshot is that KVM_DEBUGREG_RELOAD is always set when returning > >> from kvm_arch_vcpu_load() in stable, but not in Linus' tree. > > > > How would applying these in a different order cause breakage? > > [2] is reverting [0]+[1]. Stable is not due to the different order. Really? Are you sure that [0] and [1] isn't just the same commit? It looks like that to me. > > And if this is a problem, can you please send me a patch to fix it up? > > Yup, on the way. thanks, greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists