linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 067/306] KVM: nVMX: move check_vmentry_postreqs() call to nested_vmx_enter_non_root

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: <20191205074636.GA184738@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:46:36 +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 Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:42:06PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 03/12/19 20:16, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> The fourth is commit 9fe573d539a8 ("KVM: nVMX: reset cache/shadows when
> switching loaded VMCS"), which was also autoselected.

Ah, thanks, I missed that.  Should all now be fixed up here, and in the
4.14.y tree.

greg k-h