[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191203191655.GC2734645@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 20:16:55 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Jack Wang <jack.wang.usish@...il.com>,
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 Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 01:52:47PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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.
4? I see three patches here, the 2 follow-up patches that I applied to
the queue, and the "original" backport of b7031fd40fcc ("KVM: nVMX:
reset cache/shadows when switching loaded VMCS") which showed up in the
4.14.157 and 4.19.87 kernels.
confused,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists