From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86: XSA-45 followup Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 09:17:45 +0100 Message-ID: References: <51837D3F02000078000D2F19@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51837D3F02000078000D2F19@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/05/2013 08:02, "Jan Beulich" wrote: >>>> On 02.05.13 at 18:29, Keir Fraser wrote: >> On 02/05/2013 15:44, "Jan Beulich" wrote: >> >>> These aren't part of the actual security fixes, but the first helps >>> proving that what needs to be preemptible now really is. The second >>> is really just cleanup the potential for which was noticed while putting >>> together the earlier ones. >>> >>> 1: cleanup after making various page table manipulation operations >> preemptible >>> 2: miscellaneous mm.c cleanup >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich >> >> Questionable for 4.3? I'm not sure. > > I'm definitive about the first one, and am even intending to put its > backports on the stable branches later today (as the whole batch > already passed the push gate). You may have noticed that I > committed them already (you should have raised your concern > regarding committing them at this stage when these were discussed > on security@), so if you're unhappy with the second one to be > there we ought to revert it. Yeah 1/2 looks surely fine, it's just mechanistic cleanup really. 2/2 hmmm well I think it's okay too -- you wouldn't backport that one though, right? -- Keir > Jan >