On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 09:04:07AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2025-09-18 11:09:05 [-0400], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > So how about switching to this approach then? > > > Instead of piling up fixes like we seem to do now ... > > I don't have a strong preference for 6.17, beyond landing a fix of some kind. > I think there are three options for 6.17, in order of "least like to break > something": > > 1. Sebastian's get_task_struct() fix
I am just a bit apprehensive that we don't create a situation where we leak the task struct somehow, given the limited testing time. Can you help me get convinced that risk is 0? > 2. This series, without the KILLED sanity check in __vhost_task_wake() > 3. This series, with my fixup (with which syzbot was happy) > > Longer term, I'd still like to land everything though. No problem with that. > > > Sean? > > > > Since I am in To: here. You want me to resent my diff as a proper patch? > > Ya, I think it makes sense to harden against UAF even if we fix the KVM bug > more > directly.
