linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: nVMX: Decouple EPT RWX bits from EPT Violation protection bits

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]

Message-ID: <Z8DCMpSD8kNzNPky@google.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 19:51:14 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
Cc: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: nVMX: Decouple EPT RWX bits from EPT
 Violation protection bits

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, Jon Kohler wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 2025, at 2:34 PM, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> LGTM, but any chance we could hold this until I get the MBEC RFC out?
> > 
> > No?  It's definitely landing before the MBEC support, and IOM it works quite nicely
> > with the MBEC support (my diff at the bottom).  I don't see any reason to delay
> > or change this cleanup.
> 
> Ok no problem at all, happy to rebase on top of this when it lands.

FWIW, you don't have to wait for this to land to send your RFC.  You could send
your RFC as-is; obviously I'd point out the conflict, but (a) it's an RFC and
(b) generally it's not your responsibility to anticipate conflicts.

Alternatively, and probably better in this case, would be include these patches
in your RFC, with a short message in the cover letter explaining their existence.

That said, I'm guessing I'll beat you to the punch and get this landed in
kvm-x86 next before you send the RFC :-)