From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: nVMX/nSVM: Don't intercept #UD when running L2 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:34:53 +0100 Message-ID: <3a2b8ff7-2d43-d32c-0604-869fc43886d7@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: konrad.wilk@oracle.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com, hofsass@google.com, idan.brown@oracle.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Liran Alon , jmattson@google.com Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44506 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752735AbeAKNZM (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:25:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/01/2018 00:01, Liran Alon wrote: > > ----- jmattson@google.com wrote: > >> Liran, Are you planning to submit reverts for ae1f57670703 and >> ac9b305caa0d? > > Yes. > I just didn't had time to deal with this as I was busy with other Oracle Ravello specific issues. > I think reverting both commits is the right thing to do. > > Paolo: Note that the VMware Backdoor support series we have patched here (was not yet queued) is based a bit on the code of this commit. Do you wish me to first wait that those patches will be queued and then I will create the revert for these (and resolve relevant conflicts) or that I will create the reverts for these on top of what is currently queued and you will resolve the conflicts resulting when applying VMware Backdoor support series? I can take care of the reverts, but you'll have to repost the backdoor series. Unfortunately due to my involvement with Spectre in Red Hat (and Radim's vacation :)) I have fallen short on the review backlog. Paolo