On 01/10/2018 06:50 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 09/01/18 23:11, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
>> On 01/09/2018 07:22 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Since the primary audience for security fixes are production
>>> deployments of Xen where customer assets are at risk, is there an
>>> estimate for
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:27 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 08:32:24AM +, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:43:51PM +, Wei Liu wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:45:32PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > > AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 08:32:24AM +, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:43:51PM +, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:45:32PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
> > > in the sense that it will hav
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:43:51PM +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:45:32PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
> > in the sense that it will have been well-tested (especially the
> > hypervisor parts) and has good fun
On 09/01/18 23:11, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> On 01/09/2018 07:22 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
On Jan 9, 2018, at 12:56, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Doug Goldstein wrote:
On 1/9/18 11:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.01.18 at 18:23, wrote:
>> O
On 2018-01-10 11:11, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
Since the primary audience for security fixes are production
deployments of Xen where customer assets are at risk, is there an
estimate for the percentage/size of Xen deployments where PVH (not
only Xen 4.10) has already been deployed for product
On 01/09/2018 01:57 PM, Matt Wilson wrote:
> Let me know if you need any help with the sidecar script. Generally
> it's straightforward enough to build so I'm sure you won't have any
> trouble. Here's one that I used for local testing on my laptop in a
> CentOS-ish chroot (we have other bits respon
On 01/09/2018 07:22 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
>>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 12:56, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>> On 1/9/18 11:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 09.01.18 at 18:23, wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> wro
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 05:58:46PM +, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> Ian has been busy writing the sidecar script and Roger and I have been
> working on cleaning up the branch. We want to post a new version as
> soon as possible (tomorrow or even tonight).
Ian,
Let me know if you need any help with the
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:45:32PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
>> in the sense that it will have been well-tested (especially the
>> hypervisor parts) and has good functionality.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:45:32PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
> in the sense that it will have been well-tested (especially the
> hypervisor parts) and has good functionality. (Wei is handling the
> assembly of this series.)
>
>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 12:56, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> On 1/9/18 11:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 09.01.18 at 18:23, wrote:
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, George Dunlap wrot
On 01/09/2018 06:13 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On 1/8/18 11:45 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> But this is not a usual situation. This time, we don't have the time
>> to wait.
>>
>> Opinions ?
>
> I'm going to follow up with a top post with my feelings and from info on
> various parts of the thread.
>
On 1/8/18 11:45 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> But this is not a usual situation. This time, we don't have the time
> to wait.
>
> Opinions ?
I'm going to follow up with a top post with my feelings and from info on
various parts of the thread.
We have 2 versions of PV shim, the Citrix version and the
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:59:01AM -0600, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On 1/9/18 5:50 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> >
> > We haven't tested booting the series I posted in HVM mode, but off the
> > top of my head it should work in HVM mode as well -- the multiboot path
> > is left intact.
> >
>
> Can we actual
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:23:03AM -0800, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, George Dunlap wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
> >> > On a similarly pragmatic note: would a variation of Anthony's
On 1/9/18 5:50 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> We haven't tested booting the series I posted in HVM mode, but off the
> top of my head it should work in HVM mode as well -- the multiboot path
> is left intact.
>
Can we actually do this before committing to this series? I've seen a
number of "this should
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On 1/9/18 11:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.01.18 at 18:23, wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
> >
On 1/8/18 3:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> It's not particularly hard to plumb through I think but if you are
> using PCI passthrough for PV, then you really shouldn't worry about
> Spectre/Meltdown. That PV guest can already read all of physical
> memory (since no IOMMU is used) and they can
On 1/9/18 11:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.01.18 at 18:23, wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Stefano Stabellini
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, George Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
> On a similarly pragmatic note: would a variation of
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.01.18 at 18:23, wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Stefano Stabellini
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, George Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
> On a similarly pragmatic note: would
>>> On 09.01.18 at 18:23, wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
>>> > On a similarly pragmatic note: would a variation of Anthony's vixen patch
> series be suitable
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
>> > On a similarly pragmatic note: would a variation of Anthony's vixen patch
>> > series be suitable for pre-PVH Xen 4.6 - 4.9? These ver
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
> > On a similarly pragmatic note: would a variation of Anthony's vixen patch
> > series be suitable for pre-PVH Xen 4.6 - 4.9? These versions are currently
> > documented as security-supported (Oct 2
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Radical proposal: ship not-fully-tidied shim as
> 4.10.1"):
>> Does this sound fair?
>
> Everything is on fire. Your proposal seems much less radical than
> mine. I doubt it will produce a release to our users tomor
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 06:08:53AM -0800, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2018 2:59 AM, "Ian Jackson" wrote:
>
> George Dunlap writes ("Re: Radical proposal: ship not-fully-tidied shim as
> 4.10.1"):
> > On 01/09/2018 10:53 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > And as my other mail suggests, I don't th
On Jan 9, 2018 2:59 AM, "Ian Jackson" wrote:
George Dunlap writes ("Re: Radical proposal: ship not-fully-tidied shim as
4.10.1"):
> On 01/09/2018 10:53 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > And as my other mail suggests, I don't think we should allow this work
> > to be blocked by outstanding reviewed. IMO
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:24:02AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.01.18 at 01:14, wrote:
> > On 08/01/2018 17:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
> >> in the sense that it will have been well-tested (especially the
> >> hypervisor
George Dunlap writes ("Re: Radical proposal: ship not-fully-tidied shim as
4.10.1"):
> On 01/09/2018 10:53 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > And as my other mail suggests, I don't think we should allow this work
> > to be blocked by outstanding reviewed. IMO we should ship what we
> > have ASAP.
>
> We
On 01/09/2018 10:53 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Radical proposal: ship not-fully-tidied shim as
> 4.10.1"):
>> What I mean by this is
>> that, if we agree to go along this route, patches should be committed to
>> staging then immediately cherrypicked to staging-4.10, rather
Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Radical proposal: ship not-fully-tidied shim as
4.10.1"):
> What I mean by this is
> that, if we agree to go along this route, patches should be committed to
> staging then immediately cherrypicked to staging-4.10, rather than
> committed to staging-4.10 directly. This e
Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Radical proposal: ship not-fully-tidied shim as
4.10.1"):
> Does this sound fair?
Everything is on fire. Your proposal seems much less radical than
mine. I doubt it will produce a release to our users tomorrow, let
alone this week.
If we can't get agreement to commit
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
> On a similarly pragmatic note: would a variation of Anthony's vixen patch
> series be suitable for pre-PVH Xen 4.6 - 4.9? These versions are currently
> documented as security-supported (Oct 2018 - July 2020).
Hmm, Ian's mail seems to be fo
>>> On 09.01.18 at 01:14, wrote:
> On 08/01/2018 17:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
>> in the sense that it will have been well-tested (especially the
>> hypervisor parts) and has good functionality. (Wei is handling the
>> assembly o
On 08/01/2018 17:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
> AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
> in the sense that it will have been well-tested (especially the
> hypervisor parts) and has good functionality. (Wei is handling the
> assembly of this series.)
>
> The series, however,
> On Jan 8, 2018, at 16:44, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
>> On a similarly pragmatic note: would a variation of Anthony's vixen patch
>> series be suitable for pre-PVH Xen 4.6 - 4.9? These versions are currently
>> documented as security-support
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Rich Persaud wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 2018, at 12:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
>> in the sense that it will have been well-tested (especially the
>> hypervisor parts) and has good functionality. (Wei
> On Jan 8, 2018, at 12:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
> in the sense that it will have been well-tested (especially the
> hypervisor parts) and has good functionality. (Wei is handling the
> assembly of this series.)
>
> The seri
> On 8 Jan 2018, at 17:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>
> But this is not a usual situation. This time, we don't have the time
> to wait.
>
> Opinions ?
>
> Ian.
+1
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:45:32PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
>> in the sense that it will have been well-tested (especially the
>> hypervisor parts) and has good
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:45:32PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
> in the sense that it will have been well-tested (especially the
> hypervisor parts) and has good functionality. (Wei is handling the
> assembly of this series.)
>
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
> in the sense that it will have been well-tested (especially the
> hypervisor parts) and has good functionality. (Wei is handling the
> assembly of this series.)
>
> The seri
AIUI we have a series for pv-in-pvh shim which is nearing completion
in the sense that it will have been well-tested (especially the
hypervisor parts) and has good functionality. (Wei is handling the
assembly of this series.)
The series, however, needs proper review and tidying up.
Specifically,
43 matches
Mail list logo
