Re: [PATCH][STABLE] KVM: x86: Fix TSS size check for 16-bit tasks

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 04/21/2010 01:25 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> This (and the exception thing) does not qualify under the usual stable
>> rules (regression or host security: in, otherwise out).  I prefer to
>> delay brining up a new guest for one release rather than risk a
>> regression.  If you have a special requirement for it this can be relaxed.
>>
>>      
> In the end, we have to convince the customer's distro provider to
> include this. It would have been easier with an upstream merge, but it
> also is not impossible without it.
>
> But I'm not 100% convinced that the criteria you mentioned match all the
> merged stable patches. There have been feature fixes before - though
> they had more impact on common guests.

Right, we try to balance risk and pain.

> I can understand your concerns
> regarding the exception fix (which diverges from master after recent
> refactorings), but I can't see what makes this obvious fix problematic.
>    

The TSS fix is indeed trivial.  I'll queue it up.  Nevertheless, even 
trivial fixes have risks.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function