Re: [PATCH for-4.15 0/3] x86/msr: Fixes for XSA-351 [and 1 more messages]

[Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.