linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20181211103953.GC12006@edgewater-inn.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:39:53 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the arm64
 tree

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:12:30PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:11:02 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/arm64/mm/proc.S
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   67e7fdfcc682 ("arm64: mm: introduce 52-bit userspace support")
> >   68d23da4373a ("rm64: Kconfig: Re-jig CONFIG options for 52-bit VA")
> > 
> > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> > 
> >   089dc516f651 ("kasan, arm64: enable top byte ignore for the kernel")
> > 
> > from the akpm-current 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/mm/proc.S
> > index e05b3ce1db6b,d861f208eeb1..73886a5f1f30
> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/proc.S
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/proc.S
> > @@@ -449,16 -451,8 +455,16 @@@ ENTRY(__cpu_setup
> >   	 */
> >   	ldr	x10, =TCR_TxSZ(VA_BITS) | TCR_CACHE_FLAGS | TCR_SMP_FLAGS | \
> >   			TCR_TG_FLAGS | TCR_KASLR_FLAGS | TCR_ASID16 | \
> > - 			TCR_TBI0 | TCR_A1
> > + 			TCR_TBI0 | TCR_A1 | TCR_KASAN_FLAGS
> >  -	tcr_set_idmap_t0sz	x10, x9
> >  +
> >  +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_USER_VA_BITS_52
> >  +	ldr_l		x9, vabits_user
> >  +	sub		x9, xzr, x9
> >  +	add		x9, x9, #64
> >  +#else
> >  +	ldr_l		x9, idmap_t0sz
> >  +#endif
> >  +	tcr_set_t0sz	x10, x9
> >   
> >   	/*
> >   	 * Set the IPS bits in TCR_EL1.

This looks good to me. Thanks, Stephen.

Will