linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the hyperv tree with the tip 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YXe77nC1uNKiuPch@zn.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 10:27:26 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the hyperv tree with the tip tree

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 05:22:51PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the hyperv tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e9d1d2bb75b2 ("treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with cc_platform_has()")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>   cf90c4532b92 ("x86/hyperv: Add new hvcall guest address host visibility support")
> 
> from the hyperv 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/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> index 527957586f3c,525f682ab150..000000000000
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> @@@ -2024,6 -2025,17 +2026,17 @@@ static int __set_memory_enc_pgtable(uns
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> + static int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool enc)
> + {
> + 	if (hv_is_isolation_supported())
> + 		return hv_set_mem_host_visibility(addr, numpages, !enc);
> + 
>  -	if (mem_encrypt_active())
> ++	if (cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT))
> + 		return __set_memory_enc_pgtable(addr, numpages, enc);
> + 
> + 	return 0;
> + }
> + 
>   int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
>   {
>   	return __set_memory_enc_dec(addr, numpages, true);

Looks good, thanks.

Wei, you could mention this conflict when sending to Linus or you can
simply merge into your branch the tip branch tip:x86/cc which has the
cc_platform_has() changes and then redo the isolation VM stuff ontop.

HTH.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg