On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 00:35 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 20.01.16 at 18:36, wrote:
> > (As a side --- XSA-163 says that VPMU is "unsupported security-wise".
> > Do
> > we make any distinction between a feature being generally or
> > security-wise unsupported?)
>
> Not sure; considering
>>> On 20.01.16 at 18:36, wrote:
> (As a side --- XSA-163 says that VPMU is "unsupported security-wise". Do
> we make any distinction between a feature being generally or
> security-wise unsupported?)
Not sure; considering stable tree maintenance one might imply
general support to be a superset
On 01/20/2016 12:13 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.01.16 at 17:12, wrote:
There two patches need to be backported to 4.6
fb424bf x86/VPMU: don't allow any non-zero writes to MSR_IA32_PEBS_ENABLE
31af0d7 x86/VPMU: check more carefully which bits are allowed to be
written to MSRs
"Need to be" is
>>> On 20.01.16 at 17:12, wrote:
> There two patches need to be backported to 4.6
>
> fb424bf x86/VPMU: don't allow any non-zero writes to MSR_IA32_PEBS_ENABLE
> 31af0d7 x86/VPMU: check more carefully which bits are allowed to be
> written to MSRs
"Need to be" is pretty strong for an unsupporte
