Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.15 0/3] x86/msr: Fixes for XSA-351 [and 1 more messages]"):
> Andrew Cooper writes ("[PATCH for-4.15 0/3] x86/msr: Fixes for XSA-351"):
> > This is slightly complicated. Patches 1 and 2 rearrange the code to look and
> > behave more like 4.14, and patch 3 fixes a Solaris (and turbostat) bug in a
> > manner which can be backported to all security trees.
>
> As far as I can tell this series needs a respin ?
>
> I have been through the thread and AFAICT the only comments were on
> the commit message for patch 2. Patchex 1 and 3 already have a
> release-ack. Patch 2 does not have any mind of maintainer review.
Err, this is wrong.
It is
[PATCH 1/3] Revert "x86/msr: drop compatibility #GP handling in
guest_{rd, wr}msr()"
which has comments on the commit message from Jan:
So would you mind adjusting the description accordingly? [...]
"In hindsight, this was a poor move [..,]
and Roger:
I think it might be worth adding that guest access to those MSRs
will now always trigger a #GP [...]
I could easily fold in Jan's comments but it would be better for
someone more familiar with the code do handle Roger's since Roger
doesn't provide a precise wording.
These two
[PATCH 2/3] x86/msr: Forward port XSA-351 changes from 4.14
[PATCH 3/3] x86/msr: Fix Solaris and turbostat following XSA-351
have reviews from Roger.
> I would like this series to go in today.
>
> Jan, since Andrew doesn't seem to have been able to do that respin
> yet, would you be able to rewrite the commit message of message 2
> taking into account the two comments from you an from Roger ?
>
> I think that is all that's needed for these three to go into tree.
Ian.