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 11:47:53 +0100 Message-ID: <51ADC5D9.1040506@eu.citrix.com> References: <51ADBCED.7000502@eu.citrix.com> <51ADE15102000078000DB0B8@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51ADE15102000078000DB0B8@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: LarsKurth , Keir Fraser , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/04/2013 11:45 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 04.06.13 at 12:09, George Dunlap wrote: >> 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. > > Agreed, but I don't know what implications delaying a Test Day > would have. We certainly don't want to release in a rush with all > these new fixes. > >> 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. > > Yes, as I also said in the overview description above. The question > is really just about the first two to go in right away. These seem pretty clearly like things we need to have fixed in the release -- they're the kind of thing that is likely to have potentially nasty, hard-to-track-down side effects. -George