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:   Tue, 3 Dec 2019 13:52:47 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jack Wang <jack.wang.usish@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 067/306] KVM: nVMX: move check_vmentry_postreqs()
 call to nested_vmx_enter_non_root_mode()

On 03/12/19 13:27, Jack Wang wrote:
>>> Should we simply revert the patch, maybe also
>>> 9fe573d539a8 ("KVM: nVMX: reset cache/shadows when switching loaded VMCS")
>>>
>>> Both of them are from one big patchset:
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10616179/
>>>
>>> Revert both patches recover the regression I see on kvm-unit-tests.
>> Greg already included the patches that the bot missed, so it's okay.
>>
>> Paolo
>>
> Sorry, I think I gave wrong information initially, it's 9fe573d539a8
> ("KVM: nVMX: reset cache/shadows when switching loaded VMCS")
> which caused regression.
> 
> Should we revert or there's following up fix we should backport?

Hmm, let's revert all four.  This one, the two follow-ups and 9fe573d539a8.

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ