On Mon, Aug 11, 2025, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 12:04:15PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 04:22:27PM +0200, Thijs Raymakers wrote: > > > > > min and dest_id are guest-controlled indices. Using array_index_nospec() > > > > > after the bounds checks clamps these values to mitigate speculative execution > > > > > side-channels. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thijs Raymakers <thijs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Nit, you shouldn't have added my signed off on a new version, but that's > > > > ok, I'm fine with it. > > > > > > Want me to keep your SoB when applying, or drop it? > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 2 ++ > > > > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 7 +++++-- > > > > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > You also forgot to say what changed down here. > > > > > > > > Don't know how strict the KVM maintainers are, I know I require these > > > > things fixed up... > > > > > > I require the same things, but I also don't mind doing fixup when applying if > > > that's the path of least resistance (and it's not a recurring problem). > > > > > > I also strongly dislike using In-Reply-To for new versions, as it tends to confuse > > > b4, and often confuses me as well. > > > > > > But for this, I don't see any reason to send a v3. > > > > Any status on this? I don't see it in linux-next at all, nor in > > 6.17-rc1 > > I'll get it applied and sent along to Paolo/Linus this week. I haven't forgotten about this, but I was out sick most of this week and v6.17-rc1 is crashing on my test systems, so I won't get this sent along until next week. Sorry for the delay.
