linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] KVM: s390: interrupt: Fix stepping into interrupt handlers

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:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:48:25 +0200
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Freimann <jfreimann@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] KVM: s390: interrupt: Fix stepping into interrupt
 handlers



Am 03.08.23 um 00:24 schrieb Sean Christopherson:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2023, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>> Ilya Leoshkevich (6):
>>    KVM: s390: interrupt: Fix single-stepping into interrupt handlers
>>    KVM: s390: interrupt: Fix single-stepping into program interrupt
>>      handlers
>>    KVM: s390: interrupt: Fix single-stepping kernel-emulated instructions
>>    KVM: s390: interrupt: Fix single-stepping userspace-emulated
>>      instructions
>>    KVM: s390: interrupt: Fix single-stepping keyless mode exits
>>    KVM: s390: selftests: Add selftest for single-stepping
> 
> FYI, the selftests change silently conflicts with a global s/ASSERT_EQ/TEST_ASSERT_EQ
> rename[1], but the conflicts are very straightforward to resolve (just prepend TEST_).
> If we want to proactively avoid mild pain in linux-next, one option would be to merge
> the full kvm-x86/selftests branch/tag once I've made that immutable[2] (will be done
> Friday if there are no fireworks).  Though we can probably just get away with doing
> nothing other than letting Paolo know there's a silent conflict.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/169101245511.1754469.7852701829984104093.b4-ty@google.com
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/169101267140.1755771.17089576255751273053.b4-ty@google.com

Thanks for telling. Paolo, do you have a preference?

Janosch, Claudio I think this series is good to go otherwise.