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=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 81C6CC433E0 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:15:33 +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 611102087E for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:15:33 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 611102087E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jc8Rz-0002LN-HA; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:15:03 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jc8Ry-0002LI-6c for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:15:02 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 9fb9c428-9c36-11ea-ae69-bc764e2007e4 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 9fb9c428-9c36-11ea-ae69-bc764e2007e4; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:15:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365D1AD12; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] x86: relax GDT check in arch_set_info_guest() To: Andrew Cooper References: <58510f15-68d6-c773-5166-a38c72573442@citrix.com> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 16:14:54 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <58510f15-68d6-c773-5166-a38c72573442@citrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Wei Liu , =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On 22.05.2020 15:27, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 20/05/2020 08:53, Jan Beulich wrote: >> It is wrong for us to check frames beyond the guest specified limit >> (in the compat case another loop bound is already correct). >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > > I'm still not overly convinced this is a good idea, because all it will > allow people to do is write lazy code which breaks on older Xen. Sounds a little like keeping bugs for the sake of keeping things broken. The range of misbehaving versions could be shrunk by backporting this change; I didn't intend to though, so far. > However, if you still insist, Acked-by: Andrew Cooper > Thanks! Jan