linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.4 12/47] KVM: x86: avoid incorrect writes to host MSR_IA32_SPEC

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: <34df16e4-06a1-3343-2fd9-5004ec5f5fa1@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:15:27 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@...xmox.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...hat.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 12/47] KVM: x86: avoid incorrect writes to host
 MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL

On 26/02/21 13:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> So can you please add this patch to the stable trees that backported the
>>> problematic upstream commit 6441fa6178f5456d1d4b512c08798888f99db185 ?
>>>
>>> If I should submit this in any other way just ask, was not sure about
>>> what works best with a patch which cannot be cherry-picked cleanly.
>>
>> Ok, I'll submit it.
>>
>> Thanks for the testing.
> 
> Does that mean I should not take the patch here in this email and that
> you will submit it after some timeperiod, or that I should take this
> patch as-is?

The patch that Thomas requested (commit 841c2be09fe) does not apply 
cleanly, so I'll take care of sending the backport.

Paolo