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]
Date:   Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:16:44 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64
 tree

Hi all,

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:05:41 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   143ba05d867a ("arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities")
>   12eb369125ab ("arm64: cpufeature: Avoid warnings due to unused symbols")
> 
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
> 
>   a1efdff442ec ("arm64: cpufeatures: Drop the ARM64_HYP_OFFSET_LOW feature flag")
> 
> from the kvm-arm 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/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 96b15d7b10a8,5b25d56bccfd..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@@ -838,19 -826,11 +838,6 @@@ static bool has_no_hw_prefetch(const st
>   		MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV(1, MIDR_REVISION_MASK));
>   }
>   
> - static bool hyp_offset_low(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
> - 			   int __unused)
>  -static bool runs_at_el2(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unused)
> --{
> - 	phys_addr_t idmap_addr = __pa_symbol(__hyp_idmap_text_start);
> - 
> - 	/*
> - 	 * Activate the lower HYP offset only if:
> - 	 * - the idmap doesn't clash with it,
> - 	 * - the kernel is not running at EL2.
> - 	 */
> - 	return idmap_addr > GENMASK(VA_BITS - 2, 0) && !is_kernel_in_hyp_mode();
>  -	return is_kernel_in_hyp_mode();
> --}
> --
>   static bool has_no_fpsimd(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unused)
>   {
>   	u64 pfr0 = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1);

This is now a conflict between the kvm tree and the arm64 tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ