On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:34:18 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrha...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Christian Borntraeger > <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 01/23/2018 09:40 AM, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > >> wrote: > >>> On 18 January 2018 at 02:01, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> The following changes since commit > >>>> 8e5dc9ba49743b46d955ec7dacb04e42ae7ada7c: > >>>> > >>>> Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/rth/tags/pull-tcg-20180116' into > >>>> staging (2018-01-16 17:36:39 +0000) > >>>> > >>>> are available in the Git repository at: > >>>> > >>>> git://github.com/ehabkost/qemu.git tags/x86-pull-request > >>>> > >>>> for you to fetch changes up to 6cfbc54e8903a9bcc0346119949162d040c144c1: > >>>> > >>>> i386: Add EPYC-IBPB CPU model (2018-01-17 23:54:39 -0200) > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> x86 queue, 2018-01-17 > >>>> > >>>> Highlight: new CPU models that expose CPU features that guests > >>>> can use to mitigate CVE-2017-5715 (Spectre variant #2). > >>>> > >>> > >>> Applied, thanks. > >>> > >>> -- PMM > >>> > >> > >> Hi, > >> I was kind of clinging to [1] so far and had the expectation that all > >> those would be wrapped up in 2.11.1 once ready. > >> I see that the s390x changes are targeted to qemu-stable (well to > >> admit I suggested so referring the article above). > >> So I'd expected to see this series to show up on qemu-stable as well > >> but haven't seen it so far. > >> > >> Therefore I wanted to ask if there was a change of plans in that > >> regard or if it needs just a few days more to see (part of) this > >> series on qemu-stable and on its way into 2.11.1? > >> > >> [1]: https://www.qemu.org/2018/01/04/spectre/ > > > > Adding Michael, > > > > Yes, I think it makes sense to have the guest enablement for the spectre > > mitigations available in 2.11.1 for all architectures that provide it. > > (this queue for x86, Connies pending S390 patches, whatever Power > > and arm will do). > > Also adding Suraj for a statement in this regard about his "[QEMU-PPC] > [PATCH V5 0/7] target/ppc: Rework spapr_caps" series which I think is > the PPC version of all of this right? > Not sure who to add for Arm :-/ > > @Cornelia - the consumers of these stable changes in particular IMHO > are Distributions for security updates. > Seeing at least one backport into 2.11.1 would be very helpful to > avoid issues that would not apply to a forward thinking 2.12 commit. > Such a (even short distance) backport being done by the Author would > have the lowest risk of such issues creeping in. > I'm not so sure on 2.(<11).x - but one backport at least into the > latest release would be very nice to fulfill the [1] announcement > referenced above and provide a first release of these important > changes available earlier than full 2.12. I agree that a backport unto 2.11.x is useful. But I still think we should clarify the purpose of our stable tree -- not necessarily in this thread, though.
