From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102C7C3F2D1 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 08:51:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB2A2073B for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 08:51:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1583311876; bh=lc8ZcrxfTb7ziZCP6ve86LRFQyF/mtfu4M4IYApuctQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=lEEeMWKnpf1MDVvQvAieslx7NMaMeKRSYQ4c1STTGNfgLbPDUpPZAdkBUlyl/H1Pk 7P0phEtYBrF1u2ShEzSfPNVj/QCxL6zN7urbo6db0I7x59Lv+ZyScYw93ekA4jzEi/ MoUoeMZMJUGzIMsVIl8NGw1FWzHJT1vAzXXKb7lg= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727026AbgCDIvQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2020 03:51:16 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57256 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725271AbgCDIvQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2020 03:51:16 -0500 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6893220732; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 08:51:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1583311875; bh=lc8ZcrxfTb7ziZCP6ve86LRFQyF/mtfu4M4IYApuctQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=0EPbFPXmlJMC09ZrudEBw1DFLptEzQWrJkwffIcbT2InFZnVfTKtxckc2SINK8V3t ZEk6kf93chQD5mgbqN72G3VD2KPHczTsErUgQn//ZeVIJRl8YK3khNP98vZrkD9/6o 0MBUjZ63PcolvfboDVLiw3Hf7YM1hqRv2l/GbA1c= Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 09:51:13 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Oliver Upton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.5 111/176] KVM: nVMX: Emulate MTF when performing instruction emulation Message-ID: <20200304085113.GA1419475@kroah.com> References: <20200303174304.593872177@linuxfoundation.org> <20200303174317.670749078@linuxfoundation.org> <8780cf08-374b-da06-0047-0fe8eeec0113@redhat.com> <20200304081001.GB1401372@kroah.com> <04e51276-1759-2793-3b45-168284cbaf67@redhat.com> <20200304082613.GA1407851@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 09:43:18AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 04/03/20 09:26, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 09:19:09AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> On 04/03/20 09:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> I'll be glad to just put KVM into the "never apply any patches to > >>> stable unless you explicitly mark it as such", but the sad fact is that > >>> many recent KVM fixes for reported CVEs never had any "Cc: stable@vger" > >>> markings. > >> > >> Hmm, I did miss it in 433f4ba1904100da65a311033f17a9bf586b287e and > >> acff78477b9b4f26ecdf65733a4ed77fe837e9dc, but that's going back to > >> August 2018, so I can do better but it's not too shabby a record. :) > > > > 35a571346a94 ("KVM: nVMX: Check IO instruction VM-exit conditions") > > e71237d3ff1a ("KVM: nVMX: Refactor IO bitmap checks into helper function") > > > > Were both from a few weeks ago and needed to resolve CVE-2020-2732 :( > > No, they weren't, only the patch that was CCed stable was needed to > resolve the CVE. Ah, that's not what was posted to oss-security :( > Remember that at this point a lot of bugfixes or vulnerabilities in KVM > exploit corner cases of the architecture and don't show up with the > usual guests (Linux, Windows, BSDs). Since we didn't have full > information on the impact on guests that people do run, we started with > the bare minimum (the two patches above) but only for 5.6. The idea was > to collect follow-up patches for 2-4 weeks, decide which subset was > stable-worthy, and only then post them as stable backport subsets. Ok, that's fine, but it would be good if someone told me about this so that I knew what was going on when people asked me about this type of thing :) thanks, greg k-h