linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] KVM: x86: Changes for 6.17

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: <CABgObfYFfOuoh5fcZCfuuZtJ2LqZe+GOASjj8O2O-vUa08pA5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:42 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM: x86: Changes for 6.17

On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 12:07 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> As promised, the storm has arrived :-)
>
> There are a two anomalies this time around, but thankfully only one conflict,
> and a trivial one at that (details on that in the MMIO Stale Data pull request).
>
> 1. The "no assignment" pull request depends on the IRQs and MMIO Stale Data
>    pull requests.  I created the topic branch based on the IRQs branch (minus
>    one commit that came in later), and then merged in the MMIO branch to create
>    a common base.  All the commits came out as I wanted, but the diff stats
>    generated by `git request-pull` are funky, so I doctored them up, a lot.
>
> 2. The "SEV cache maintenance" pull request is based on a tag/branch from the
>    tip tree.  I don't think you need to do anything special here?  Except
>    possibly mention it to Linus if the KVM pull request happens to get sent
>    before the associated tip pull request (which seems unlikely given how they
>    send a bunch of small pulls).

Pulled everything except the lone TDX commit, thanks. I'm going to
start testing without it.

Paolo