On Thu, 04 May 2023, Bhatnagar, Rishabh wrote:
On 5/3/23 6:10 PM, email@example.com wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:34:33AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2023, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2022, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 06:19:26PM +0200, email@example.com wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 03:34:04PM +0000, Bhatnagar, Rishabh wrote: > > Gentle reminder to review this patch series. > Gentle reminder to never top-post :) > > Also, it's up to the KVM maintainers if they wish to review this or not. > I can't make them care about old and obsolete kernels like 5.10.y. Why > not just use 5.15.y or newer? Given the lack of responses here from the KVM developers, I'll drop this from my mbox and wait for them to be properly reviewed and resend before considering them for a stable release.
Would someone be kind enough to take a look at this for Greg please?
Note that at least one of the patches in this set has been identified as a fix for a serious security issue regarding the compromise of guest kernels due to the mishandling of flush operations.
A minor note, the security issue is serious _if_ the bug can be exploited, which as is often the case for KVM, is a fairly big "if". Jann's PoC relied on collusion between host userspace and the guest kernel, and as Jann called out, triggering the bug on a !PREEMPT host kernel would be quite difficult in practice.
I don't want to downplay the seriousness of compromising guest security, but CVSS scores for KVM CVEs almost always fail to account for the multitude of factors in play. E.g. CVE-2023-30456 also had a score of 7.8, and that bug required disabling EPT, which pretty much no one does when running untrusted guest code.
In other words, take the purported severity with a grain of salt.
Please could someone confirm or otherwise that this is relevant for v5.10.y and older?
Acked-by: Sean Christopherson firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks for taking the time to provide some background information and for the Ack Sean, much appreciated.
For anyone taking notice, I expect a little lag on this still whilst Greg is AFK. I'll follow-up in a few days.
What am I supposed to do here? The thread is long-gone from my stable review queue, is there some patch I'm supposed to apply? If so, can I get a resend with the proper acks added?
Yeah its been half a year since i sent this series and i had mostly forgotten about this. Sure i can resend a new version with acks/tested-by added.
Thank you Rishabh.
Please can you ensure that you Cc me on it please.