linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] KVM: selftests: Return a value from vcpu_get

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: <ZyT-6iCNlA1VSAV3@google.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 09:16:42 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, 
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, 
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>, Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>, James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>, 
	David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] KVM: selftests: Return a value from
 vcpu_get_reg() instead of using an out-param

On Fri, Nov 01, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 08:59:16AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Can you instead just push out a topic branch and let the affected
> > > maintainers deal with it? This is the usual way we handle conflicts
> > > between trees...
> > 
> > That'd work too, but as you note below, doing that now throws a wrench in things
> > because essentially all arch maintainers would need merge that topic branch,
> > otherwise linux-next would end up in the same state.
> 
> TBH, I'm quite happy with that. Recent history has not been particularly
> convinincing to me that folks are actually testing arm64, let alone
> compiling for it when applying selftests patches.

FWIW, I did compile all patches on all KVM architectures, including selftests.
But my base obviously didn't include the kvm-arm64 branch :-/

One thing I'll add to my workflow would be to do a local merge (and smoke test)
of linux-next into kvm-x86 next before pushing it out.  This isn't the only snafu
this cycle where such a sanity check would have saved me and others a bit of pain.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241101153857.GAZyT2EdLXKs7ZmDFx@fat_crate.local