linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 08/57] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d3311713-013b-003c-248b-22ebf1e45c7c@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Dec 2020 11:55:55 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Nikos Tsironis <ntsironis@...ikto.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 08/57] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt
 injection window request

On 01/12/20 11:20, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Ok, I will go drop this patch from 4.14, 4.9, and 4.4.  Or, should the
> needed pre-requisite patch be properly backported there instead?

I would just drop it.  It was not reported in five years so it's quite 
unlikely that people will see the bug.

> And was it marked somewhere that this patch depended on that one and I
> just missed it?

I don't see anything in stable-kernel-rules.rst about how to mark such 
semantic conflicts, so no, it wasn't marked.  (The commit message does 
say "thanks to the previous patch", but I don't expect you or your 
scripts to notice that!).

Thanks,

Paolo