linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: nVMX: Fix 2nd exec controls override goofs

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: <20221215112436.2iqizpso5loeficn@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 19:24:36 +0800
From:   Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: nVMX: Fix 2nd exec controls override goofs

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:18:33AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > 
> > BTW, we may need another patch to remove the obsolete comments in
> > nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs():
> 
> Ouch, indeed.  Want to send a proper patch?  Or provide your SoB and I'll write
> a changelog?
> 
> The comment was added by commit 80154d77c922 ("KVM: VMX: cache secondary exec controls"),
> but arguably the below is the appropriate Fixes, as it's the commit that fixed the
> existing cases where KVM didn't enumerate supported-but-conditional controls.
> 
> Fixes: 6defc591846d ("KVM: nVMX: include conditional controls in /dev/kvm KVM_GET_MSRS")
> 

Thanks a lot, Sean, especially for sharing the commit history.

And I just sent out a patch to fix it.

One question is about the process of small cleanup patches like
this: would it be better off to include the cleanup patches as
part of a larger submission, or is it OK to be sent seperately?

Previously I submitted some small patches(e.g. [1] & [2]) but
have not received any reply. So I am just wondering, maybe those
patches are too trivial and sometimes time-wasting for the reviewers?

Any suggestion? Thanks!

B.R.
Yu

[1]: [PATCH] KVM: MMU: Add wrapper to check whether MMU is in direct mode
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg297583.html
[2]: [PATCH v2 0/2] Cleanup VMFUNC handling in KVM. 
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg4582139.html