[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241216172113.GCZ2BhiQlgqYtpQ5lC@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:21:13 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...nel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/bugs: Add SRSO_USER_KERNEL_NO support
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 02:35:39PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Btw, Sean, how should we merge this?
> >
> > Should I take it all through tip and give you an immutable branch?
>
> Hmm, that should work. I don't anticipate any conflicts other than patch 2
> (Advertise SRSO_USER_KERNEL_NO to userspace), which is amusingly the most trivial
> patch.
>
> Patch 2 is going to conflict with the CPUID/cpu_caps rework[*], but the conflict
> won't be hard to resolve, and I'm pretty sure that if I merge in your branch after
> applying the rework, the merge commit will show an "obviously correct" resolution.
> Or if I screw it up, an obviously wrong resolution :-)
>
> Alternatively, take 1, 3, and 4 through tip, and 2 through my tree, but that
> seems unnecessarily convoluted.
Ok, lemme queue them all through tip and we'll see what conflicts we encounter
along the way and then sync again.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists