On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 09:52:19AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 09:04:07AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
quoted
On 2025-09-18 11:09:05 [-0400], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted
So how about switching to this approach then?
Instead of piling up fixes like we seem to do now ...
I don't have a strong preference for 6.17, beyond landing a fix of some kind.
I think there are three options for 6.17, in order of "least like to break
something":
1. Sebastian's get_task_struct() fix
I am just a bit apprehensive that we don't create a situation
where we leak the task struct somehow, given the limited
testing time. Can you help me get convinced that risk is 0?
I doubt it, I share same similar concerns about lack of testing. So I guess
thinking about this again, #2 is probably safer since it'd only impact KVM?
I can't say I understand completely how we get that state though?
Why did the warning trigger if it's not a UAF?
quoted
quoted
2. This series, without the KILLED sanity check in __vhost_task_wake()
3. This series, with my fixup (with which syzbot was happy)