From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] XSA-52..54 follow-up Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:09:49 +0100 Message-ID: <51ADBCED.7000502@eu.citrix.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: 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: Lars Kurth , Jan Beulich , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/04/2013 11:00 AM, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 04/06/2013 08:58, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > >> The first patch really isn't as much of a follow-up than what triggered >> the security issues to be noticed in the first place. >> >> 1: x86: preserve FPU selectors for 32-bit guest code >> 2: x86: fix XCR0 handling >> 3: x86/xsave: adjust state management >> 4: x86/fxsave: bring in line with recent xsave adjustments >> >> The first two I would see as candidates for 4.3 (as well as >> subsequent backporting, albeit I realize that especially the first >> one is non-trivial), while the third is code improvement only, >> and the fourth is really just cleanup, and hence I'd be fine with >> deferring them until after 4.3. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > > I like the patches, 1 & 2 are good bug fixes. > Acked-by: Keir Fraser > > Patch #1 is quite scary though! I wonder really whether these long-lived > issues must be fixed right now, let alone backported? Yeah, I was going to say, with all this tricky code going in, including this one, and the XSA-55 (?) one that seems to have tons of tricky changes, whether it might not be a good idea to make sure we have at least 2 weeks of testing and another test day -- or, delay the test day Wednesday until we can get all of these in. Jan, looking at the comments, it seems like 3 and 4 are more about performance than correctness? I think those should probably wait until the 4.4 dev window opens up. -George