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=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,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 0DC4BC2B9F4 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:49:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCA02613E3 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:49:36 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BCA02613E3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=xenproject.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.144012.265156 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lttKa-0000Sf-Vr; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:49:20 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 144012.265156; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:49:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lttKa-0000SY-Ss; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:49:20 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 144012; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:49:19 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lttKZ-0000SS-AY for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:49:19 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lttKZ-00030d-7e for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:49:19 +0000 Received: from iwj (helo=mariner.uk.xensource.com) by xenbits.xenproject.org with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lttKZ-0003j3-6V for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:49:19 +0000 Received: from iwj by mariner.uk.xensource.com with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1lttKU-0006qd-Ai; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 15:49:14 +0100 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenproject.org; s=20200302mail; h=References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:Date :Message-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:From; bh=apCRNlutG6gde4fZIvTvumMxgbmHH/P+Hax+AURj52c=; b=CmUNRlxGDD2sbA0T0kp9NUJkIu kPBrHs/w1U68NA+VeoQksHhClFBwc3Kkr9b6GQM7t94Q5xwpx83Dk7MmocT80BtYmVn6Znz6zsIz4 NHFwEsQVFqMc8KVR8YL277V0dSrpIni68c50Zb6zxzkDQHobKxYHm7VUu3xDmwosE8to=; From: Ian Jackson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <24779.24810.167567.520077@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 15:49:14 +0100 To: Jan Beulich Cc: Andrew Cooper , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Roger Pau =?iso-8859-1?Q?Monn=E9?= , "committers\@xenproject.org" Subject: Re: Regressed XSA-286, was [xen-unstable test] 161917: regressions - FAIL In-Reply-To: <5537bc9b-0a71-60f0-efce-d0d33301fe45@suse.com> References: <7cfa28ae-2fbe-0945-8a6c-a965ec52155f@citrix.com> <637ff3c7-afeb-aae4-0f1d-5ae168e01e01@citrix.com> <99833b7b-f626-fac5-d426-109afd4ffa38@suse.com> <24779.18584.523983.904660@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <5537bc9b-0a71-60f0-efce-d0d33301fe45@suse.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Jan Beulich writes ("Re: Regressed XSA-286, was [xen-unstable test] 161917: regressions - FAIL"): > If any OS made such an assumption, then I don't think it would be > a vulnerability either. It would simply be a guest kernel bug then. For the avoidance of doubt: I think you are saying that if any OS did make the assumption, the resulting bug *would not be exploitable* (by an unprivileged guest process, or by a PV backend it was speaking to, or, somehow, by another guest). Ian.