Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] x86/PV: avoid speculation abuse through guest accessors

[Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] x86/PV: avoid speculation abuse through 
guest accessors"):
> On 19.02.2021 16:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Jan Beulich writes ("[PATCH v2 0/8] x86/PV: avoid speculation abuse through 
> > guest accessors"):
> >> 4: rename {get,put}_user() to {get,put}_guest()
> >> 5: gdbsx: convert "user" to "guest" accesses
> >> 6: rename copy_{from,to}_user() to copy_{from,to}_guest_pv()
> >> 7: move stac()/clac() from {get,put}_unsafe_asm() ...
> >> 8: PV: use get_unsafe() instead of copy_from_unsafe()
> > 
> > These have not got a maintainer review yet.  To grant a release-ack
> > I'd like an explanation of the downsides and upsides of taking this
> > series in 4.15 ?
> > 
> > You say "consistency" but in practical terms, what will happen if the
> > code is not "conxistent" in this sense ?
> > 
> > I'd also like to hear from aother hypervisor maintainer.
> 
> Meanwhile they have been reviewed by Roger. Are you willing to
> give them, perhaps with the exception of 7, a release ack as
> well?

Sorry, yes.

I found these explanations convincing  Thank you.

For all except 7,
Release-Acked-by: Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

For 7, I remember what I think was an IRC conversation where someone
(you, I think) said you had examined the generated asm and it was
unchanged.

If I have remembered that correctly, then for 7 as well:
Release-Acked-by: Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

If I have misremembered please do say.

Ian.