netdev - Re: [GIT PULL v2] virtio,vhost: last minute fixes

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: <20250918121009-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 12:12:30 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Filip Hejsek <filip.hejsek@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com,
	ashwini@...ig.com, hi@...ssa.is, maxbr@...ux.ibm.com,
	zhangjiao2@...s.chinamobile.com,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] virtio,vhost: last minute fixes

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 05:45:05PM +0200, Filip Hejsek wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-09-18 at 11:09 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Most notably this reverts a virtio console
> > change since we made it without considering compatibility
> > sufficiently.
> 
> It seems that we are not in agreement about whether it should be
> reverted or not. I think it should depend on whether the virtio spec
> maintainers are willing to change it to agree with the Linux
> implementation. I was under the impression that they aren't.

Ugh. OK I guess I'll drop this one too then.
That leaves nothing relevant for this pull request.


> I will quote some conversation from the patch thread.
> 
> Maximilian Immanuel Brandtner wrote:
> > On a related note, during the initial discussion of this changing the
> > virtio spec was proposed as well (as can be read from the commit mgs),
> > however at the time on the viritio mailing list people were resistent
> > to the idea of changing the virtio spec to conform to the kernel
> > implementation.
> > I don't really care if this discrepancy is fixed one way or the other,
> > but it should most definitely be fixed.
> 
> I wrote:
> > I'm of the same opinion, but if it is fixed on the kernel side, then
> > (assuming no device implementation with the wrong order exists) I think
> > maybe the fix should be backported to all widely used kernels. It seems
> > that the patch hasn't been backported to the longterm kernels [1],
> > which I think Debian kernels are based on.
> > 
> > [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/log/drivers/char/virtio_console.c?h=v6.12.47
> 
> Maximilian Immanuel Brandtner wrote:
> > Then I guess the patch-set should be backported
> 
> After that, I sent a backport request to stable@. Maybe I should have
> waited some more time before doing that.
> 
> Anyway, I don't care which way this dilemma will be resolved, but the
> discussion is currently scattered among too many places and it's hard
> to determine what the consensus is.
> 
> Best regards,
> Filip Hejsek