Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 00/10] x86: Enable Supervisor Mode Access Prevention (SMAP)

["Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 4:40 PM
> To: Wu, Feng
> Cc: andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx; Dong, Eddie;
> Nakajima, Jun; Tian, Kevin; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] x86: Enable Supervisor Mode Access Prevention
> (SMAP)
> 
> >>> On 08.05.14 at 10:15, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Feng Wu (10):
> >   x86: define macros CPUINFO_features and CPUINFO_FEATURE_OFFSET
> >   x86: move common_interrupt to entry.S
> >   x86: merge stuff from asm-x86/x86_64/asm_defns.h to
> >     asm-x86/asm_defns.h
> >   x86: Add support for STAC/CLAC instructions
> >   x86: Clear AC bit in RFLAGS to protect Xen itself by SMAP
> >   x86: Temporary disable SMAP to legally access user pages in kernel
> >     mode
> >   VMX: Disable SMAP feature when guest is in non-paging mode
> >   x86: Enable Supervisor Mode Access Prevention (SMAP) for Xen
> >   x86/hvm: Add SMAP support to HVM guest
> >   x86/tools: Expose SMAP to HVM guests
> 
> This list doesn't appear to match what you actually sent - all I see
> are patches 5, 6, 8, and 9. Maybe the delivery of 4, 7, and 10 got
> delayed, but it seems pretty clear you didn't resend 1-3 (as you
> were asked), so why are these still listed here, and why is the
> total count still 10 rather than 7 (or lower)?
> 
> Jan

Actually I only send patches 5, 6, 8, and 9 in this post. I think I don't 
understand
the format mails correctly, so I didn't send 4, 7, and 10. Sorry for that! I 
will rebase
the patch set on the latest upstream and resend the remaining 7 patches.

Thanks,
Feng


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel