linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH MANUALSEL 5.10 1/2] KVM: x86: lapic: don't touch irr_pending in kvm_apic_update

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, 26 Jul 2022 17:50:39 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH MANUALSEL 5.10 1/2] KVM: x86: lapic: don't touch
 irr_pending in kvm_apic_update_apicv when inhibiting it

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 7/26/22 01:49, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 2022/3/2 1:10, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > On 2/22/22 15:05, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > > > From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > [ Upstream commit 755c2bf878607dbddb1423df9abf16b82205896f ]
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> > > 
> > > What prevented it to be accepted into 5.10-stable? It can still be
> > > applied cleanly on top of linux-5.10.y.
> > 
> > KVM opts out of the AUTOSEL logic and instead uses MANUALSEL.  The basic idea is
> > the same, use scripts/magic to determine what commits that _aren't_ tagged with an
> > explicit "Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org" should be backported to stable trees, the
> > difference being that MANUALSEL requires an explicit Acked-by from the maintainer.
> 
> But as far as I understand it was not applied, and neither was "KVM: x86:
> nSVM: deal with L1 hypervisor that intercepts interrupts but lets L2 control
> them".

Ah, I misunderstood the question.  I'll get out of the way.