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  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:   Wed, 25 Nov 2020 23:25:49 -0800
From:   Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the arm64 tree

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:06 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in:
>
>   arch/arm64/mm/proc.S
>
> between commit:
>
>   49b3cf035edc ("kasan: arm64: set TCR_EL1.TBID1 when enabled")
>
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>
>   68cd215d6529 ("arm64: kasan: allow enabling in-kernel MTE")
>
> from the akpm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I think, 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 a0831bf8a018,0d85e6df42bc..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/proc.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/proc.S
> @@@ -40,9 -40,15 +40,15 @@@
>   #define TCR_CACHE_FLAGS       TCR_IRGN_WBWA | TCR_ORGN_WBWA
>
>   #ifdef CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS
> - #define TCR_KASAN_FLAGS TCR_TBI1 | TCR_TBID1
>  -#define TCR_KASAN_SW_FLAGS TCR_TBI1
> ++#define TCR_KASAN_SW_FLAGS TCR_TBI1 | TCR_TBID1
>   #else
> - #define TCR_KASAN_FLAGS 0
> + #define TCR_KASAN_SW_FLAGS 0
> + #endif
> +
> + #ifdef CONFIG_KASAN_HW_TAGS
>  -#define TCR_KASAN_HW_FLAGS SYS_TCR_EL1_TCMA1 | TCR_TBI1
> ++#define TCR_KASAN_HW_FLAGS SYS_TCR_EL1_TCMA1 | TCR_TBI1 | TCR_TBID1
> + #else
> + #define TCR_KASAN_HW_FLAGS 0
>   #endif
>
>   /*

Thanks Stephen, that resolution looks correct to me.

Peter

Powered by blists - more mailing lists