linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Introduce CET supervisor state support

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: <Z8daVRCZjNTxLATy@google.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 11:53:57 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Xin Li <xin@...or.com>
Cc: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, tglx@...utronix.de, 
	dave.hansen@...el.com, x86@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, 
	rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, mlevitsk@...hat.com, weijiang.yang@...el.com, 
	john.allen@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Introduce CET supervisor state support

On Tue, Mar 04, 2025, Xin Li wrote:
> On 1/10/2025 5:26 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024, Chao Gao wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 06:17:04PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> > > > This v2 is essentially a resend of the v1 series. I took over this work
> > > >from Weijiang, so I added my Signed-off-by and incremented the version
> > > > number. This repost is to seek more feedback on this work, which is a
> > > > dependency for CET KVM support. In turn, CET KVM support is a dependency
> > > > for both FRED KVM support and CET AMD support.
> > > 
> > > This series is primarily for the CET KVM series. Merging it through the tip
> > > tree means this code will not have an actual user until the CET KVM series
> > > is merged. A good proposal from Rick is that x86 maintainers can ack this
> > > series, and then it can be picked up by the KVM maintainers along with the
> > > CET KVM series. Dave, Paolo and Sean, are you okay with this approach?
> > 
> > Boris indicated off-list that he would prefer to take this through tip and give
> > KVM an immutable branch.  I'm a-ok with either approach.
> > 
> 
> Hi Sean and Boris,
> 
> At this point because KVM is the only user of this feature, would it
> make more sense to take this patch set through KVM x86 tree?

Which tree it goes through is largely irrelevant, it needs explicit acceptance
from the tip tree folks no matter what.