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, 16 Dec 2020 09:21:17 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the s390 tree with the asm-generic
 tree

Hi all,

On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:25:14 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the s390 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   93e2dfd39438 ("s390: use asm-generic/mmu_context.h for no-op implementations")
> 
> from the asm-generic tree and commits:
> 
>   ab177c5d00cd ("s390/mm: remove unused clear_user_asce()")
>   87d598634521 ("s390/mm: remove set_fs / rework address space handling")
> 
> from the s390 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/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> index 66f9cf0a07e3,87a84fc59fc3..000000000000
> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> @@@ -70,23 -69,8 +70,6 @@@ static inline int init_new_context(stru
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> - static inline void set_user_asce(struct mm_struct *mm)
> - {
> - 	S390_lowcore.user_asce = mm->context.asce;
> - 	__ctl_load(S390_lowcore.user_asce, 1, 1);
> - 	clear_cpu_flag(CIF_ASCE_PRIMARY);
> - }
> - 
> - static inline void clear_user_asce(void)
> - {
> - 	S390_lowcore.user_asce = S390_lowcore.kernel_asce;
> - 	__ctl_load(S390_lowcore.kernel_asce, 1, 1);
> - 	set_cpu_flag(CIF_ASCE_PRIMARY);
> - }
> - 
> - mm_segment_t enable_sacf_uaccess(void);
> - void disable_sacf_uaccess(mm_segment_t old_fs);
>  -#define destroy_context(mm)             do { } while (0)
> --
>   static inline void switch_mm(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
>   			     struct task_struct *tsk)
>   {
> @@@ -121,18 -98,18 +97,18 @@@ static inline void finish_arch_post_loc
>   		__tlb_flush_mm_lazy(mm);
>   		preempt_enable();
>   	}
> - 	set_fs(current->thread.mm_segment);
> + 	__ctl_load(S390_lowcore.user_asce, 7, 7);
>   }
>   
>  -#define enter_lazy_tlb(mm,tsk)	do { } while (0)
>  -#define deactivate_mm(tsk,mm)	do { } while (0)
>  -
>  +#define activate_mm activate_mm
>   static inline void activate_mm(struct mm_struct *prev,
>                                  struct mm_struct *next)
>   {
>   	switch_mm(prev, next, current);
>   	cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mm_cpumask(next));
> - 	set_user_asce(next);
> + 	__ctl_load(S390_lowcore.user_asce, 7, 7);
>   }
>   
>  +#include <asm-generic/mmu_context.h>
>  +
>   #endif /* __S390_MMU_CONTEXT_H */

This is now a conflict between the asm-generic tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists