From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Ian Jackson <iwj@xenproject.org>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
"Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
"Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>, "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
"George Dunlap" <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] x86/PV: avoid speculation abuse through guest accessors
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 14:18:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c7fe2872-626c-1bd9-02f2-572ce81eabbe@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <24630.20427.917602.787877@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
On 24.02.2021 14:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] x86/PV: avoid speculation abuse through guest accessors"):
>> On 19.02.2021 16:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Jan Beulich writes ("[PATCH v2 0/8] x86/PV: avoid speculation abuse through guest accessors"):
>>>> 4: rename {get,put}_user() to {get,put}_guest()
>>>> 5: gdbsx: convert "user" to "guest" accesses
>>>> 6: rename copy_{from,to}_user() to copy_{from,to}_guest_pv()
>>>> 7: move stac()/clac() from {get,put}_unsafe_asm() ...
>>>> 8: PV: use get_unsafe() instead of copy_from_unsafe()
>>>
>>> These have not got a maintainer review yet. To grant a release-ack
>>> I'd like an explanation of the downsides and upsides of taking this
>>> series in 4.15 ?
>>>
>>> You say "consistency" but in practical terms, what will happen if the
>>> code is not "conxistent" in this sense ?
>>>
>>> I'd also like to hear from aother hypervisor maintainer.
>>
>> Meanwhile they have been reviewed by Roger. Are you willing to
>> give them, perhaps with the exception of 7, a release ack as
>> well?
>
> Sorry, yes.
>
> I found these explanations convincing Thank you.
>
> For all except 7,
> Release-Acked-by: Ian Jackson <iwj@xenproject.org>
Thanks.
> For 7, I remember what I think was an IRC conversation where someone
> (you, I think) said you had examined the generated asm and it was
> unchanged.
It was in email, and I've inspected only some example of the
generated asm, not all instances. I would hope that was
sufficient, but since I'm not entirely certain ...
> If I have remembered that correctly, then for 7 as well:
> Release-Acked-by: Ian Jackson <iwj@xenproject.org>
... I'll better wait for explicit confirmation of this.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-24 13:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-17 8:16 [PATCH v2 0/8] x86/PV: avoid speculation abuse through guest accessors Jan Beulich
2021-02-17 8:19 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] x86: split __{get,put}_user() into "guest" and "unsafe" variants Jan Beulich
2021-02-17 8:20 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] x86: split __copy_{from,to}_user() " Jan Beulich
2021-02-17 8:20 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] x86/PV: harden guest memory accesses against speculative abuse Jan Beulich
2021-02-17 8:21 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] x86: rename {get,put}_user() to {get,put}_guest() Jan Beulich
2021-02-22 15:22 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-17 8:21 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] x86/gdbsx: convert "user" to "guest" accesses Jan Beulich
2021-02-22 15:31 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-22 15:55 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-22 16:08 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-17 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] x86: rename copy_{from,to}_user() to copy_{from,to}_guest_pv() Jan Beulich
2021-02-23 11:04 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-23 15:15 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-17 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] x86: move stac()/clac() from {get,put}_unsafe_asm() Jan Beulich
2021-02-23 11:40 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-17 8:23 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] x86/PV: use get_unsafe() instead of copy_from_unsafe() Jan Beulich
2021-02-23 11:59 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-23 15:25 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-23 15:37 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-23 16:13 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-23 18:03 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-19 15:50 ` [PATCH v2 0/8] x86/PV: avoid speculation abuse through guest accessors Ian Jackson
2021-02-19 15:56 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-19 16:13 ` Ian Jackson
2021-02-19 16:16 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-19 16:30 ` Ian Jackson
2021-02-24 11:13 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-24 13:08 ` Ian Jackson
2021-02-24 13:18 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2021-02-24 13:26 ` Ian Jackson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c7fe2872-626c-1bd9-02f2-572ce81eabbe@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=george.dunlap@citrix.com \
--cc=iwj@xenproject.org \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).