Re: [PATCH 1/2] xen/arm: entry: Place a speculation barrier following an ret instruction

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

On 19/08/2020 09:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.08.2020 10:50, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 19/08/2020 09:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 19.08.2020 09:59, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> > > > > On 18 Aug 2020, at 18:34, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Btw - is there any need for this thread to be cross posted to both
> > > xen-devel@ and security@? (I've dropped the latter here.)
> >   From the cover letter:
> >
> > "The patch series is directly sent on the mailing list as the
> > security team has been aware of the issues after the whitepaper was
> > publicly released."
> >
> > This is technically still a security issue except this is discussed in
> > the open as it is a zero day for us. An XSA will have to be issued in
> > due course. Hence why security@ is added to keep track of the conversation.
> I thought cross-posting is generally considered bad practice. I can't
> see what extra "keeping track of the conversation" gets added by CCing
> security@: Everything will already be recorded in the list archives of
> xen-devel.
The "keep track of the conversation" wasn't in the sense of recording 
but that we are aware that there is a pending 0-day discussion and take 
action one the discussion as settled.
> For some background of my original question: The cross posting confuses
> the rules I have set up in my mail client - the mail gets moved back
> and forth between the two distinct folders for each of the lists. I
> haven't been able to figure a non-clumsy way yet to avoid this
> happening. The mail client we used to use until about a year ago did
> not have any issue with the same scenario.
I am sorry to hear your e-mail client is not capable to do basic 
filtering. However, this is not the first place where we do that (see 
Linux or QEMU patches).
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall