* [PATCH v3 0/2] KVM: x86: Fix missing EFER validity checks @ 2026-07-13 18:01 Yosry Ahmed 2026-07-13 18:01 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* Yosry Ahmed 2026-07-13 18:01 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] KVM: selftests: Extend set_sregs test to cover EFER Yosry Ahmed 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Yosry Ahmed @ 2026-07-13 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Christopherson; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, kvm, linux-kernel, Yosry Ahmed v3 of the EFER missing validity checks on KVM_SET_SREGS* fix, split out a larger series of EFER fixes. v2 -> v3: - Split out KVM_SET_SREG* fix and selftest. v2: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20260706195413.1966458-1-yosry@kernel.org/ Yosry Ahmed (2): KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* KVM: selftests: Extend set_sregs test to cover EFER arch/x86/kvm/regs.c | 3 +- .../selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h | 2 + .../selftests/kvm/x86/set_sregs_test.c | 83 ++++++++++++++----- 3 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) base-commit: 3aec122bdcaf6f8c4ecfc7f6adf6773015ced676 -- 2.55.0.141.g00534a21ce-goog ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* 2026-07-13 18:01 [PATCH v3 0/2] KVM: x86: Fix missing EFER validity checks Yosry Ahmed @ 2026-07-13 18:01 ` Yosry Ahmed 2026-07-13 18:09 ` Yosry Ahmed 2026-07-13 18:14 ` sashiko-bot 2026-07-13 18:01 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] KVM: selftests: Extend set_sregs test to cover EFER Yosry Ahmed 1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Yosry Ahmed @ 2026-07-13 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Christopherson; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, kvm, linux-kernel, Yosry Ahmed, stable When handling userspace SREGS writes, check the validity of EFER (i.e. allowed bits) before writing the new value of EFER through the per-vendor set_efer callbacks. This prevents userspace from writing bogus values (e.g. EFER.SVME=1 with nested=0). Note: on KVM_SET_MSRS, KVM only checks EFER validity in terms of KVM caps, not guest caps, so it is possible to set EFER bits that are supported by KVM but not by the guest CPUID. Potentially allowing userspace to set msrs before CPUID. However, for KVM_SET_SREGS*, check the validity of the set bits against both KVM and guest caps. This is consistent with other validity checks (e.g. for CR4) that check validity against guest caps, which already imposes the need to set CPUID before SREGS. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Change-Id: I45701ec440e4fdd8f086eb70db0c0845fb0ed509 Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosry@kernel.org> --- arch/x86/kvm/regs.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/regs.c b/arch/x86/kvm/regs.c index bd8147798cc3e..8f66438989e47 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/regs.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/regs.c @@ -564,7 +564,8 @@ static bool kvm_is_valid_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs) } return kvm_is_valid_cr4(vcpu, sregs->cr4) && - kvm_is_valid_cr0(vcpu, sregs->cr0); + kvm_is_valid_cr0(vcpu, sregs->cr0) && + kvm_valid_efer(vcpu, sregs->efer); } static int __set_sregs_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs, -- 2.55.0.141.g00534a21ce-goog ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* 2026-07-13 18:01 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* Yosry Ahmed @ 2026-07-13 18:09 ` Yosry Ahmed 2026-07-13 18:14 ` sashiko-bot 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Yosry Ahmed @ 2026-07-13 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Christopherson; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, kvm, linux-kernel, stable On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 11:02 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosry@kernel.org> wrote: > > When handling userspace SREGS writes, check the validity of EFER (i.e. > allowed bits) before writing the new value of EFER through the > per-vendor set_efer callbacks. This prevents userspace from writing > bogus values (e.g. EFER.SVME=1 with nested=0). > > Note: on KVM_SET_MSRS, KVM only checks EFER validity in terms of KVM > caps, not guest caps, so it is possible to set EFER bits that are > supported by KVM but not by the guest CPUID. Potentially allowing > userspace to set msrs before CPUID. > > However, for KVM_SET_SREGS*, check the validity of the set bits against > both KVM and guest caps. This is consistent with other validity checks > (e.g. for CR4) that check validity against guest caps, which already > imposes the need to set CPUID before SREGS. > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Change-Id: I45701ec440e4fdd8f086eb70db0c0845fb0ed509 Forgot to drop these, sorry :/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* 2026-07-13 18:01 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* Yosry Ahmed 2026-07-13 18:09 ` Yosry Ahmed @ 2026-07-13 18:14 ` sashiko-bot 2026-07-13 18:54 ` Yosry Ahmed 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: sashiko-bot @ 2026-07-13 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yosry Ahmed; +Cc: kvm Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: Pre-existing issues: - [High] This problem wasn't introduced by this patch, but the return value of `kvm_x86_call(set_efer)` is ignored in `__set_sregs_common()`, leading to a silent failure when nested state allocation fails. -- --- Patch [1]: [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* --- commit 6edd9e84461af3c58ac965b84f89b7c4985ddeb3 Author: Yosry Ahmed <yosry@kernel.org> KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* This commit adds checks to validate EFER against both KVM and guest caps during KVM_SET_SREGS* writes, preventing userspace from writing bogus values through the per-vendor set_efer callbacks. > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/regs.c b/arch/x86/kvm/regs.c > index bd8147798cc3e..8f66438989e47 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/regs.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/regs.c [ ... ] > @@ -564,7 +564,8 @@ static bool kvm_is_valid_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs) > } > > return kvm_is_valid_cr4(vcpu, sregs->cr4) && > - kvm_is_valid_cr0(vcpu, sregs->cr0); > + kvm_is_valid_cr0(vcpu, sregs->cr0) && > + kvm_valid_efer(vcpu, sregs->efer); > } > > static int __set_sregs_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs, > int *mmu_reset_needed, bool update_pdptrs) > { [ ... ] > vcpu->arch.cr3 = sregs->cr3; > kvm_register_mark_dirty(vcpu, VCPU_REG_CR3); > kvm_x86_call(post_set_cr3)(vcpu, sregs->cr3); > > *mmu_reset_needed |= vcpu->arch.efer != sregs->efer; > kvm_x86_call(set_efer)(vcpu, sregs->efer); [Severity: High] This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but should the return value of kvm_x86_call() be checked here? If a userspace process calls the KVM_SET_SREGS ioctl with EFER.SVME set, kvm_x86_call(set_efer) could call into svm_set_efer(), which attempts to allocate nested state via svm_allocate_nested(). If the system is under memory pressure, this allocation can fail and return -ENOMEM. Because the return value is ignored in __set_sregs_common(), doesn't this lead to a silent failure where KVM fails to set the guest's EFER register but still returns success to userspace? -- Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260713180153.2728382-1-yosry@kernel.org?part=1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* 2026-07-13 18:14 ` sashiko-bot @ 2026-07-13 18:54 ` Yosry Ahmed 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Yosry Ahmed @ 2026-07-13 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: sashiko-reviews; +Cc: kvm On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 11:14 AM <sashiko-bot@kernel.org> wrote: > > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: > > Pre-existing issues: > - [High] This problem wasn't introduced by this patch, but the return value of `kvm_x86_call(set_efer)` is ignored in `__set_sregs_common()`, leading to a silent failure when nested state allocation fails. > -- > > --- Patch [1]: [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* --- > commit 6edd9e84461af3c58ac965b84f89b7c4985ddeb3 > Author: Yosry Ahmed <yosry@kernel.org> > > KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* > > This commit adds checks to validate EFER against both KVM and guest caps > during KVM_SET_SREGS* writes, preventing userspace from writing bogus values > through the per-vendor set_efer callbacks. > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/regs.c b/arch/x86/kvm/regs.c > > index bd8147798cc3e..8f66438989e47 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/regs.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/regs.c > > [ ... ] > > > @@ -564,7 +564,8 @@ static bool kvm_is_valid_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs) > > } > > > > return kvm_is_valid_cr4(vcpu, sregs->cr4) && > > - kvm_is_valid_cr0(vcpu, sregs->cr0); > > + kvm_is_valid_cr0(vcpu, sregs->cr0) && > > + kvm_valid_efer(vcpu, sregs->efer); > > } > > > > static int __set_sregs_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs, > > int *mmu_reset_needed, bool update_pdptrs) > > { > > [ ... ] > > > vcpu->arch.cr3 = sregs->cr3; > > kvm_register_mark_dirty(vcpu, VCPU_REG_CR3); > > kvm_x86_call(post_set_cr3)(vcpu, sregs->cr3); > > > > *mmu_reset_needed |= vcpu->arch.efer != sregs->efer; > > kvm_x86_call(set_efer)(vcpu, sregs->efer); > > [Severity: High] > This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but should the return value > of kvm_x86_call() be checked here? > > If a userspace process calls the KVM_SET_SREGS ioctl with EFER.SVME set, > kvm_x86_call(set_efer) could call into svm_set_efer(), which attempts to > allocate nested state via svm_allocate_nested(). > > If the system is under memory pressure, this allocation can fail and return > -ENOMEM. Because the return value is ignored in __set_sregs_common(), > doesn't this lead to a silent failure where KVM fails to set the guest's > EFER register but still returns success to userspace? This seems like a real issue, and I think it's not very easy to fix because it seems like KVM_SET_SREGS is currently atomic, we either do all the updates or we fail. So we can't just fail in the middle of __set_sregs_common() if set_efer() fails, we have to either undo the previous changes or re-order the writes to do EFER first. Re-ordering seems like it should be fine, I don't immediately see svm_set_efer() or vmx_set_efer() depending on any of the previous updates, but I didn't look too closely. Anyway, this is completely orthogonal to this patch AFAICT. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 2/2] KVM: selftests: Extend set_sregs test to cover EFER 2026-07-13 18:01 [PATCH v3 0/2] KVM: x86: Fix missing EFER validity checks Yosry Ahmed 2026-07-13 18:01 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* Yosry Ahmed @ 2026-07-13 18:01 ` Yosry Ahmed 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Yosry Ahmed @ 2026-07-13 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Christopherson; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, kvm, linux-kernel, Yosry Ahmed Extend the set_sregs test to cover various bits in EFER. Update TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT() to operate on EFER as well as CRx (and rename it accordingly). Add test cases to check that EFER bits are disallowed without the relevant CPUID enablement. Assisted-by: Gemini:unknown-version Change-Id: I588e7259c6257f40640127a52ce808a0f5afa016 Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosry@kernel.org> --- .../selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h | 2 + .../selftests/kvm/x86/set_sregs_test.c | 83 ++++++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h index 7d3a27bc0d842..b161174ece453 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86/processor.h @@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ struct kvm_x86_cpu_feature { #define X86_FEATURE_PERFCTR_NB KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x80000001, 0, ECX, 24) #define X86_FEATURE_PERFCTR_LLC KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x80000001, 0, ECX, 28) #define X86_FEATURE_NX KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x80000001, 0, EDX, 20) +#define X86_FEATURE_FXSR_OPT KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x80000001, 0, EDX, 25) #define X86_FEATURE_GBPAGES KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x80000001, 0, EDX, 26) #define X86_FEATURE_RDTSCP KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x80000001, 0, EDX, 27) #define X86_FEATURE_LM KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x80000001, 0, EDX, 29) @@ -226,6 +227,7 @@ struct kvm_x86_cpu_feature { #define X86_FEATURE_SEV KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x8000001F, 0, EAX, 1) #define X86_FEATURE_SEV_ES KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x8000001F, 0, EAX, 3) #define X86_FEATURE_SEV_SNP KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x8000001F, 0, EAX, 4) +#define X86_FEATURE_AUTOIBRS KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x80000021, 0, EAX, 8) #define X86_FEATURE_GP_ON_USER_CPUID KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x80000021, 0, EAX, 17) #define X86_FEATURE_PERFMON_V2 KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x80000022, 0, EAX, 0) #define X86_FEATURE_LBR_PMC_FREEZE KVM_X86_CPU_FEATURE(0x80000022, 0, EAX, 2) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/set_sregs_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/set_sregs_test.c index 8e654cc9ab168..562afab378d11 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/set_sregs_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/set_sregs_test.c @@ -21,20 +21,20 @@ #include "kvm_util.h" #include "processor.h" -#define TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr, orig, bit) \ +#define TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, reg, orig, bit) \ do { \ struct kvm_sregs new; \ int rc; \ \ /* Skip the sub-test, the feature/bit is supported. */ \ - if (orig.cr & bit) \ + if (orig.reg & bit) \ break; \ \ - memcpy(&new, &orig, sizeof(sregs)); \ - new.cr |= bit; \ + memcpy(&new, &orig, sizeof(new)); \ + new.reg |= bit; \ \ rc = _vcpu_sregs_set(vcpu, &new); \ - TEST_ASSERT(rc, "KVM allowed invalid " #cr " bit (0x%lx)", bit); \ + TEST_ASSERT(rc, "KVM allowed invalid " #reg " bit (0x%llx)", (unsigned long long)bit); \ \ /* Sanity check that KVM didn't change anything. */ \ vcpu_sregs_get(vcpu, &new); \ @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ do { \ X86_CR4_MCE | X86_CR4_PGE | X86_CR4_PCE | \ X86_CR4_OSFXSR | X86_CR4_OSXMMEXCPT) +#define KVM_ALWAYS_ALLOWED_EFER EFER_SCE + static u64 calc_supported_cr4_feature_bits(void) { u64 cr4 = KVM_ALWAYS_ALLOWED_CR4; @@ -74,6 +76,24 @@ static u64 calc_supported_cr4_feature_bits(void) return cr4; } +static u64 calc_supported_efer_feature_bits(void) +{ + u64 efer = KVM_ALWAYS_ALLOWED_EFER; + + if (kvm_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LM)) + efer |= (EFER_LME | EFER_LMA); + if (kvm_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_NX)) + efer |= EFER_NX; + if (kvm_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SVM)) + efer |= EFER_SVME; + if (kvm_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FXSR_OPT)) + efer |= EFER_FFXSR; + if (kvm_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AUTOIBRS)) + efer |= EFER_AUTOIBRS; + + return efer; +} + static void test_cr_bits(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 cr4) { struct kvm_sregs sregs; @@ -96,26 +116,45 @@ static void test_cr_bits(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 cr4) (sregs.cr4 & X86_CR4_PKE) ? "set" : "clear"); vcpu_sregs_get(vcpu, &sregs); - TEST_ASSERT(sregs.cr4 == cr4, "sregs.CR4 (0x%llx) != CR4 (0x%lx)", - sregs.cr4, cr4); - - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_UMIP); - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_LA57); - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_VMXE); - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_SMXE); - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_FSGSBASE); - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_PCIDE); - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_OSXSAVE); - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_SMEP); - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_SMAP); - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_PKE); + TEST_ASSERT_EQ(sregs.cr4, cr4); + + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_UMIP); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_LA57); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_VMXE); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_SMXE); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_FSGSBASE); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_PCIDE); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_OSXSAVE); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_SMEP); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_SMAP); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr4, sregs, X86_CR4_PKE); for (i = 32; i < 64; i++) - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr0, sregs, BIT(i)); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr0, sregs, BIT(i)); /* NW without CD is illegal, as is PG without PE. */ - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr0, sregs, X86_CR0_NW); - TEST_INVALID_CR_BIT(vcpu, cr0, sregs, X86_CR0_PG); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr0, sregs, X86_CR0_NW); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, cr0, sregs, X86_CR0_PG); +} + +static void test_efer_bits(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 efer) +{ + struct kvm_sregs sregs; + int rc; + + vcpu_sregs_get(vcpu, &sregs); + sregs.efer |= efer; + rc = _vcpu_sregs_set(vcpu, &sregs); + TEST_ASSERT(!rc, "Failed to set supported EFER bits (0x%llx)", sregs.efer); + + vcpu_sregs_get(vcpu, &sregs); + TEST_ASSERT_EQ(sregs.efer, efer); + + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, efer, sregs, EFER_LME); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, efer, sregs, EFER_NX); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, efer, sregs, EFER_SVME); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, efer, sregs, EFER_FFXSR); + TEST_INVALID_SREG_BIT(vcpu, efer, sregs, EFER_AUTOIBRS); } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) @@ -132,6 +171,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) */ vm = vm_create_barebones(); vcpu = __vm_vcpu_add(vm, 0); + test_efer_bits(vcpu, KVM_ALWAYS_ALLOWED_EFER); test_cr_bits(vcpu, KVM_ALWAYS_ALLOWED_CR4); kvm_vm_free(vm); @@ -151,6 +191,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) sregs.apic_base); test_cr_bits(vcpu, calc_supported_cr4_feature_bits()); + test_efer_bits(vcpu, calc_supported_efer_feature_bits()); kvm_vm_free(vm); -- 2.55.0.141.g00534a21ce-goog ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-07-13 18:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2026-07-13 18:01 [PATCH v3 0/2] KVM: x86: Fix missing EFER validity checks Yosry Ahmed 2026-07-13 18:01 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: x86: Check EFER validity on KVM_SET_SREGS* Yosry Ahmed 2026-07-13 18:09 ` Yosry Ahmed 2026-07-13 18:14 ` sashiko-bot 2026-07-13 18:54 ` Yosry Ahmed 2026-07-13 18:01 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] KVM: selftests: Extend set_sregs test to cover EFER Yosry Ahmed
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox