Re: [PATCH 1/2] xen/arm: entry: Place a speculation barrier following an ret instruction

[Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>]

On 19/08/2020 09:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.08.2020 10:50, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 19/08/2020 09:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 19.08.2020 09:59, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>>> On 18 Aug 2020, at 18:34, Julien Grall <julien@xen.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Btw - is there any need for this thread to be cross posted to both
>>> xen-devel@ and security@? (I've dropped the latter here.)
>>
>>   From the cover letter:
>>
>> "The patch series is directly sent on the mailing list as the
>> security team has been aware of the issues after the whitepaper was
>> publicly released."
>>
>> This is technically still a security issue except this is discussed in
>> the open as it is a zero day for us. An XSA will have to be issued in
>> due course. Hence why security@ is added to keep track of the conversation.
> 
> I thought cross-posting is generally considered bad practice. I can't
> see what extra "keeping track of the conversation" gets added by CCing
> security@: Everything will already be recorded in the list archives of
> xen-devel.

The "keep track of the conversation" wasn't in the sense of recording 
but that we are aware that there is a pending 0-day discussion and take 
action one the discussion as settled.

> 
> For some background of my original question: The cross posting confuses
> the rules I have set up in my mail client - the mail gets moved back
> and forth between the two distinct folders for each of the lists. I
> haven't been able to figure a non-clumsy way yet to avoid this
> happening. The mail client we used to use until about a year ago did
> not have any issue with the same scenario.

I am sorry to hear your e-mail client is not capable to do basic 
filtering. However, this is not the first place where we do that (see 
Linux or QEMU patches).

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall