Re: [STABLE 4.9.y PATCH 0/9] Backport of KVM Speculation Control support

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 06:42:03PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 08/02/2018 18:14, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:49:59AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 09:05:46PM +0000, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 2018-02-06 at 19:01 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>> On 06/02/2018 18:29, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >>>>> I've put together a linux-4.9.y branch at 
> >>>>> http://git.infradead.org/retpoline-stable.git/shortlog/refs/heads/linux-4.9.y
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> Most of it is fairly straightforward, apart from the IBPB on context 
> >>>>> switch for which Tim has already posted a candidate. I wanted some more
> >>>>> review on my backports of the KVM bits though, including some extra
> >>>>> historical patches I pulled in.
> >>>>
> >>>> Looks good!  Thanks for the work,
> >>>>
> >>>> Paolo
> >>>
> >>> Thanks. In that case, Greg, the full set is lined up in
> >>> http://git.infradead.org/retpoline-stable.git/shortlog/refs/heads/linux-4.9.y
> >>> or git://git.infradead.org/retpoline-stable linux-4.9.y
> >>
> >> Many thanks for all of this work.  I've now queued up all of these.
> > 
> > There's a problem with the backport of 6342c50ad12e ("KVM: nVMX:
> > vmx_complete_nested_posted_interrupt() can't fail") as there is still a
> > check in the function that can fail:
> > 
> > 		vapic_page = kmap(vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page);
> > 		if (!vapic_page) {
> > 			WARN_ON(1);
> > 			return -ENOMEM;
> > 		}
> > 
> > Do we need something else before this patch in order to fix this?  I
> > guess kmap really can't fail, should I just drop the whole (!vapic_page)
> > check?
> 
> Yes, that would be commit 42cf014d38d8822cce63703a467e00f65d000952.
> Should David or I respin?

No need, I can sneak it into the middle of the series :)  I'll do it
later tonight and let you know if I have any problems, thanks for
pointing out the needed commit.

greg k-h