linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the tip tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170904160912.7ed61e25@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 4 Sep 2017 16:09:12 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the tip tree

Hi all,

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:52:09 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ea2800ddb20d ("kvm/x86: Avoid clearing the C-bit in rsvd_bits()")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>   d6321d493319 ("KVM: x86: generalize guest_cpuid_has_ helpers")
> 
> from the kvm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> index 04d750813c9d,2a8a6e3e2a31..000000000000
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> @@@ -4116,21 -4157,11 +4162,21 @@@ reset_shadow_zero_bits_mask(struct kvm_
>   	 * Passing "true" to the last argument is okay; it adds a check
>   	 * on bit 8 of the SPTEs which KVM doesn't use anyway.
>   	 */
>  -	__reset_rsvds_bits_mask(vcpu, &context->shadow_zero_check,
>  +	shadow_zero_check = &context->shadow_zero_check;
>  +	__reset_rsvds_bits_mask(vcpu, shadow_zero_check,
>   				boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits,
>   				context->shadow_root_level, uses_nx,
> - 				guest_cpuid_has_gbpages(vcpu), is_pse(vcpu),
> - 				true);
> + 				guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_GBPAGES),
> + 				is_pse(vcpu), true);
>  +
>  +	if (!shadow_me_mask)
>  +		return;
>  +
>  +	for (i = context->shadow_root_level; --i >= 0;) {
>  +		shadow_zero_check->rsvd_bits_mask[0][i] &= ~shadow_me_mask;
>  +		shadow_zero_check->rsvd_bits_mask[1][i] &= ~shadow_me_mask;
>  +	}
>  +
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(reset_shadow_zero_bits_mask);
>   

Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell