linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the arm64 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: <c5fa65ad-791c-1b5a-4b54-c05d2a206885@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jun 2018 19:08:51 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the arm64 tree

On 04/06/2018 09:33, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:57:54PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   94b07c1f8c39 ("arm64: signal: Report signal frame size to userspace via auxv")
>>
>> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>>
>>   9a6e594869b2 ("arm64/sve: Move sve_pffr() to fpsimd.h and make inline")
>>
>> 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.
> 
> The resolution looks fine here, thanks.

Looks good, but it would have been even better if the ARM64 tree
provided a topic branch and the kvm/arm tree pulled it.

Thanks,

Paolo

> ---Dave
> 
>>
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell
>>
>> diff --cc arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
>> index 65ab83e8926e,c99e657fdd57..000000000000
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
>> @@@ -246,9 -246,17 +248,20 @@@ void cpu_enable_pan(const struct arm64_
>>   void cpu_enable_cache_maint_trap(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *__unused);
>>   void cpu_clear_disr(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *__unused);
>>   
>>  +extern unsigned long __ro_after_init signal_minsigstksz; /* sigframe size */
>>  +extern void __init minsigstksz_setup(void);
>>  +
>> + /*
>> +  * Not at the top of the file due to a direct #include cycle between
>> +  * <asm/fpsimd.h> and <asm/processor.h>.  Deferring this #include
>> +  * ensures that contents of processor.h are visible to fpsimd.h even if
>> +  * processor.h is included first.
>> +  *
>> +  * These prctl helpers are the only things in this file that require
>> +  * fpsimd.h.  The core code expects them to be in this header.
>> +  */
>> + #include <asm/fpsimd.h>
>> + 
>>   /* Userspace interface for PR_SVE_{SET,GET}_VL prctl()s: */
>>   #define SVE_SET_VL(arg)	sve_set_current_vl(arg)
>>   #define SVE_GET_VL()	sve_get_current_vl()
> 
>