From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olaf Hering Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: refine the XSA-9 fix Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:56:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20120817155617.GA32537@aepfle.de> References: <20120817151136.GA25138@aepfle.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Keir Fraser Cc: Keir Fraser , Jan Beulich , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, Aug 17, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 17/08/2012 16:11, "Olaf Hering" wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 18, Keir Fraser wrote: > > > >> On 13/06/2012 11:04, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > >> > >>> Our product management wasn't happy with the "solution" for XSA-9, and > >>> demanded that customer systems must continue to boot. Rather than > >>> having our and perhaps other distros carry non-trivial patches, allow > >>> for more fine grained control (panic on boot, deny guest creation, or > >>> merely warn) by means of a single line change. > >> > >> All this seems to allow is to boot but not create domU-s. Which seems a bit > >> pointless. > > > > Refusing to boot into dom0 with no good reason is a good way to lose > > remote control of a system without serial console. Not funny. > > > > Fortunately I booted and tested with sles11 Xen first before ruining the > > box with plain xen-unstable. > > > > So, please apply this patch and remove the panic() from > > ./xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c > > Okay, that's a good argument for that patch. Oh, now that the context was posted again: With the patch the box would still panic per default. Leaving it zero to refuse guest creation looks like a sensible default. Olaf