On Tue, Apr 09, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 16:21 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > On Tue, 2024-03-19 at 17:15 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > Fix a bug found by syzkaller, thanks to a new WARN sanity check, where KVM > > > > marks a gfn_to_pfn_cache as active without actually setting gpc->gpa or any > > > > other metadata. On top, harden against _directly_ setting gpc->gpa to KVM's > > > > magic INVALID_GPA, which would also fail the sanity check. > > > > > > > > Sean Christopherson (3): > > > > KVM: Add helpers to consolidate gfn_to_pfn_cache's page split check > > > > KVM: Check validity of offset+length of gfn_to_pfn_cache prior to > > > > activation > > > > KVM: Explicitly disallow activatating a gfn_to_pfn_cache with > > > > INVALID_GPA > > > > > > It looks like these conflict with > > > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240227115648.3104-9-dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > Want to arrange them to come after it? > > > > Very belated, yes. Though by the time you read this, they should be in > > kvm-x86/next. > > Did that 'yes' mean 'no'? Because your three patches are in, but you > didn't arrange them to come after my 'clean up rwlock abuse' patch, as > you seemed to be saying 'yes' to... Doh, I misread your question, multiple times. I thought you were asking if I wanted you to arrange your patches after this series. Your series goes on top because I want to land this series in 6.9 to fix the syzkaller splat (which was effectively introduced in 6.9), whereas your patch is 6.10 material.
