linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.5 111/176] KVM: nVMX: Emulate MTF when performing instruction emulation

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:   Wed, 4 Mar 2020 09:19:09 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.5 111/176] KVM: nVMX: Emulate MTF when performing
 instruction emulation

On 04/03/20 09:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> I'll be glad to just put KVM into the "never apply any patches to
> stable unless you explicitly mark it as such", but the sad fact is that
> many recent KVM fixes for reported CVEs never had any "Cc: stable@...r"
> markings.

Hmm, I did miss it in 433f4ba1904100da65a311033f17a9bf586b287e and
acff78477b9b4f26ecdf65733a4ed77fe837e9dc, but that's going back to
August 2018, so I can do better but it's not too shabby a record. :)

> They only had "Fixes:" tags and so I have had to dig them out
> of the tree and backport them myself in order to resolve those very
> public issues.
> 
> So can I ask that you always properly tag things for stable?  If so, I
> will be glad to ignore Fixes: tags for KVM patches in the future.
> 
> I'll go drop this patch as well.  Note, there are other KVM patches in
> this release cycle also, can someone verify that I did not overreach for
> them as well?

I checked them and they are fine.

Paolo