linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/coco: Define cc_vendor without CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CC

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]

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 11:29:25 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
	kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
	morbo@...gle.com, justinstitt@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
	patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/coco: Define cc_vendor without
 CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CC_PLATFORM

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 04:53:21PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> Commit a9ef277488cf ("x86/kvm: Fix SEV check in sev_map_percpu_data()")
> exposes this build error but I think it is really a problem with commit
> da86eb961184 ("x86/coco: Get rid of accessor functions"), although I am
> not positive so I left out the fixes tag.

Well, which is it?

If you're running those GCOV LLVM tests regularly and you haven't seen
it after da86eb961184, then it cannot be that one, can it?

In any case, you can simply revert a9ef277488cf and see if it fires.

> It would be nice if this could go along with KVM tree that has that
> change but it is obviously well within -tip's territory so I will just
> aim it at both parties and let them figure it out :)

The answer to the above question would determine the proper Fixes tag
and who picks it up.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette