linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/kvm: revert commit 76b4f357d0e7d8f6f00

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:15:25 -0800
From:   Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/kvm: revert commit 76b4f357d0e7d8f6f00

On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 12:47 AM Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On 08.11.21 21:15, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 12:14 PM Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:51 AM Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Commit 76b4f357d0e7d8f6f00 ("x86/kvm: fix vcpu-id indexed array sizes")
> >>> has wrong reasoning, as KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID is not defining the maximum
> >>> allowed vcpu-id as its name suggests, but the number of vcpu-ids.
> >>>
> >>> So revert this patch again.
> >>>
> >>> Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
> >>
> >> The original commit 76b4f357d0e7d8f6f00 CC'ed Stable but this revert
> >> does not. Looking at the stable branches, I see the original has been
> >> reverted but this hasn't. Should this be added to Stable as well?
> >
> > *the original has been incorporated into the stable branches but this hasn't.
>
> Just yesterday I received mails that this patch has been added to the
> stable branches.
>
>
> Juergen

Oh wonderful, what a coincidence!
Thanks,
Ben